Oral Answers to Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Afghanistan

Elfyn Llwyd: When she last met non-governmental organisations to discuss the delivery of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan.

Paul Burstow: What assessment she has made of the requirements for aid in Afghanistan in readiness for the winter.

Anne McIntosh: If she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan.

Clare Short: The United Nations estimates that there are 6 million people in need of food aid in Afghanistan. The House will recall that prior to 11 September the World Food Programme was supplying food aid to 5 million Afghans. After 11 September all international workers were withdrawn from Afghanistan and deliveries stopped for 13 days. Thereafter, deliveries steadily improved and were interrupted only briefly when bombing started on 7 October. Targets were met up to 13 November and delivery systems inside the country also held up.
	On 13 November, however, deliveries across the border from Pakistan, which is the major delivery route, were suspended because of uncertainty due to the military situation. Deliveries from other routes continued. On Monday, the WFP resumed operations between Peshawar and Kabul, and those continue. There are stocks sufficient for 10 days supply within the country. International workers are returning to parts of Afghanistan, but there are also reports of looting of many UN and NGO offices.

Elfyn Llwyd: I thank the right hon. Lady for the nature of that reply and the help that she is giving the House. According to Oxfam, however, three quarters of all trucking routes into Afghanistan remain suspended. Despite her best efforts, targets are not being met. I was interested in what she said to the Select Committee on International Development yesterday about the Americans not taking the humanitarian issue as seriously as this Administration do. If that is true, what can be done urgently to address that problem?

Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. I am afraid that Oxfam is simply wrong again if it is saying that three quarters of the routes are suspended. The report that I have just given the House is the accurate one.
	I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to correct the misreporting of what I told the Select Committee. I said, as I had previously said in the House, that we had less good civil/military liaison than we had in the case of Kosovo; that we could improve our performance on the humanitarian effort not if one group tried to do the other's work but if there was better liaison; and that urgent improvement was needed. The second thing that I said was about the general commitment of overseas development aid by the American Administration, which is the lowest in the world, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Paul Burstow: Does the Secretary of State accept that, this winter, refugee camps will have a key part to play in distributing food aid? The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was meant to have opened 15 camps by now, of which I understand only one has been opened. How many will be opened and how soon, how soon will they reach full capacity, and what is the Department doing to expedite the opening of the remaining camps?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman may recall that when the UN issued its appeal shortly after the crisis began, it predicted 1.5 million new refugees in addition to the nearly 4 million long-standing refugees that are in Iran and Pakistan. In fact the volume of movement has not been nearly so great. It is about 100,000, coming over in trickles, so there are some new camps, but the numbers are nothing like those that were predicted as needed. Obviously, the food and support need to follow the people. They have tended to stay inside Afghanistan but have often moved out of the cities. They are internally displaced, rather than crossing borders in big numbers. There are supplies for refugees; our biggest problem remains inside Afghanistan.

Anne McIntosh: The Secretary of State has said that 10 days supplies are all that remain; that clearly is not enough. Will she regret, with me, the delay in sending in the troops, which is indeed very regrettable? Does she agree that they should have a peacekeeping as well as humanitarian role, to ensure that food aid is delivered according to her timetable?

Clare Short: I agree that the figure of 10 days' supply is a bit worrying. Supplies from one of the major Pakistan routes have now resumed but we need to do better. If we continue to have difficulties in crossing that border, we really will get into serious problems. I agree with the hon. Lady that we need agreement on the new transitional Government for Afghanistan and then some international forces to stabilise the situation, so that Afghanistan may receive better humanitarian support and start the job of reconstruction.

Tony Worthington: I am sure that the Secretary of State will welcome with me the appointment of Mark Malloch Brown, head of the United Nations Development Programme and the senior Briton in the UN family of organisations, to head the regeneration of Afghanistan, confirming that, in our view and that of the UN, this is not just about short-term aid but about the rebuilding of a failed state—probably over many years—in Afghanistan.

Clare Short: I do of course welcome the appointment of Mark Malloch Brown. The job of UNDP is co-ordination and he will be doing that. Perhaps even more importantly, yesterday there was a conference in the US, attended by my permanent secretary among others, where Colin Powell and Paul O'Neill strongly committed the US to the reconstruction of Afghanistan and to sticking with Afghanistan until it had the chance of a better future. That we must all do, and learn the lesson of the previous error, when, after the Russian withdrawal, everyone turned their backs on Afghanistan. That was how the tragedy of today came about.

John Battle: Will the Secretary of State insist that international organisations work with Afghan aid and development workers? The International Development Committee heard evidence from representatives of the World Food Programme that there is food and medicine in its warehouses and that it has, magnificently, managed to keep the polio immunisation programme going, but as the routes into Afghanistan open up, it is important that international agencies do not swamp the country and neglect the good work done by the locals throughout these difficult times.

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In East Timor, international organisations brought in too many international workers and did not use enough East Timorese—the people who had to take over and run their own country. Afghans have performed superbly since 11 September, when all international workers were withdrawn, and they very bravely kept the delivery systems going in the face of great attacks. That work needs to be honoured, and as we get back into the country, the Afghans who have done so well need to be kept in senior positions both to continue the humanitarian effort and to start the reconstruction of their country.

John Robertson: My right hon. Friend will be aware of media reports of houses collapsing because humanitarian aid was dropped on them. There are also reports of aid packages being sold in marketplaces rather than being given out. What does she intend to do to prevent that happening?

Clare Short: The only aid dropped by air up to now has been the United States "hearts and minds" parcels, if I can call them that. They contained jam, crackers and peanut butter, and I do not think that they were heavy enough to cause houses to collapse. I am happy to say that the UN World Food Programme has done a splendid job, continuing to supply massive quantities of food—enough to feed 6 million people—to a mountainous country with poor roads. It has done so without using airdrops, although they may be necessary in areas that will become inaccessible because of the winter.

Jenny Tonge: The right hon. Lady is rightly concerned that the civil/military liaison in Afghanistan is not working well. We have continually been told that the bombing in Afghanistan will bring a quick end to this campaign and open up humanitarian corridors before the winter. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State has not admitted that, despite the apparent collapse of the Taliban in many parts of Afghanistan, the delivery of humanitarian aid remains extremely difficult in many areas. [Interruption.] Does she agree that we need a substantial deployment of troops, backed by an explicit UN resolution to secure aid to Afghanistan?

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber, particularly from hon. Members at the back. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) is nodding, but he is one of the noisiest. It is extremely unfair to the hon. Member asking the question and the Minister answering for her Department.

Clare Short: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	I do not accept the hon. Lady's suggestion that I should have admitted anything. I have done my best, as I have promised since the beginning of the crisis, to keep the House fully informed of the facts. I have not made admissions; I have made accurate reports, whereas some of the wild claims made by NGOs, which may be well intentioned, are not accurate.
	I agree with the hon. Lady that, with the welcome collapse of the Taliban, our potential enemy now is disorder. We need Ambassador Brahimi to be successful as soon as possible in agreeing a transitional Afghan Government who are fully recognised by the UN, so that it can return to the country. We need troops on the ground to keep order so that the new Government can take over and assemble Afghanistan's own security forces. The humanitarian effort can then go towards opening clinics and health centres, getting schools working again and getting food-for-work programmes going.

Derek Foster: May I say what an enormous pleasure it is for Labour Members that my right hon. Friend, a doughty fighter for humanitarian aid throughout her career, is in her post at this crucial point in history? She will recall campaigning with me to raise the proportion of GDP that we spend on aid to the 0.7 per cent. that was urged on us for many years. I have not seen a great shortage of money in the Chancellor's pockets of late. Indeed, one of the problems has been underspending of the money that we have agreed. She would have enormous support if she were to make a strong bid to up that percentage of GDP.

Clare Short: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments and I shall ensure that they are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. As he probably knows, we have just started the process of the next comprehensive spending review. I should like to tell my hon. Friends that, if any Department is having any trouble spending its budget, mine is certainly not having such trouble and I could help out.

Caroline Spelman: Does the Secretary of State regret accusing America yesterday of turning its back on the world, when in fact it was the largest donor of aid to Afghanistan even before 11 September? Does she accept that, at this stage, nothing would give the Taliban greater comfort than to hear of a rift between the US and the UK?

Clare Short: I heard the hon. Lady on the radio this morning and I think it laughable to suggest that inaccurate reporting in our media of an accurate report that I gave the Select Committee will help the Taliban to avoid collapse in Afghanistan. That really is a bit silly. In response to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), the Chairman of the Committee and a member of her party, who asked whether it is a worry that the US is the smallest contributor of aid among the OECD countries, I told the Select Committee that I thought that that was regrettable, that there was a chance that the whole world, post-11 September, would be more committed to development, and that there did seem to be a problem with the US, a country made up of diverse nationalities, in that it turned inwards and was rather insular. I stand by all those remarks.

Angola

Vernon Coaker: What assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in Angola, with particular reference to children.

Hilary Benn: Children and other vulnerable people are bearing the brunt of the continuing conflict in Angola. Some 42 per cent. of Angolan children are underweight for their age, fewer than half of them go to school and under-five infant mortality there is the second highest in the world. The UK has contributed £56 million in development and humanitarian aid since 1993 and we continue to work through UN agencies, NGOs and our contribution to EC assistance. The urgent need, however, is to bring the war to an end.

Vernon Coaker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The statistics that he gave show how awful the situation is for children in Angola. Unfortunately, there are no television cameras to record the misery that can be seen there. Having recently visited Angola on a trip with UNICEF, I ask my hon. Friend to consider what we can do to support projects in the southern half of the country, where there is less conflict and they can have the maximum effect. We can then show the children and people of Angola what can be done with good governance.

Hilary Benn: I say to my hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who was also a part of that UNICEF- supported visit to Angola, that I very much agree with his point about the need to demonstrate in that country the benefits of peace and stability. We are this year contributing almost £3 million in humanitarian aid through a range of NGOs, which will, in particular, benefit refugee children and their families. As my hon. Friend will be aware, in Luanda, we have the urban poverty programme, which is helping with water supply, micro-finance and child care. However, the fact remains that peace is the necessary precondition for progress in this relatively wealthy country, which has oil. If the Government could direct those resources more towards poverty reduction, the country would have a better prospect for the future.

Tony Baldry: Does the Minister agree that we now need an international coalition against poverty, whether it is Angola or Afghanistan? We would have far greater clout in such a coalition if we could reach the 0.7 per cent. target. It is in all our interests to engage with colleagues in Congress in the United States to ensure that it is outward looking and that it seeks to improve on the rather poor 0.1 per cent. of gross national income that it devotes to development aid. If there is to be a coalition against poverty, it must engage all the richest nations in the world.

Hilary Benn: I endorse all the points made by the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, it seems that a coalition on precisely those points is developing between him as Chairman of Select Committee on International Development and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The events of the past two months have given all of us—particularly America—pause for thought on the importance of international development in the new world order. There is now a better opportunity in that country to advance the arguments made by the hon. Gentleman than there has been for many years.

Hilton Dawson: My hon. Friend is aware of the shocking conditions in 13 transit camps in Angola; even by the appallingly low standards of that country, conditions are particularly bad for thousands of people and their children. The Angolan Government have promised to close the camps by the end of the year and move those people to better conditions. The ambassador in Luanda is trying hard to pursue the matter with the Government. Will my hon. Friend bring every pressure that he can muster to bear on the Angolan Government on that vital issue?

Hilary Benn: We certainly shall. As my hon. Friend is aware, a team from the Department for International Development was recently in Angola as part of a review mission. On that occasion, it pressed the precise point made by my hon. Friend—the need to ensure that the Government of Angola honour their commitment to close the camps, which are clearly in an appalling condition.

Ministerial Meeting

Stephen O'Brien: If she will make a statement on her recent meeting with the Presidents of Uganda and Rwanda.

Clare Short: My recent meeting with the Presidents of Rwanda and Uganda was fruitful in reducing tension between the two countries. The two Presidents talked through the causes of the rising tension, then signed an understanding committing them to discourage dissidents from organising in each other's country and to undertake not to interfere in each other's internal affairs. They agreed to set up mechanisms to monitor the implementation of the agreement, with the UK acting as a third party. The Prime Minister joined the talks for a time. The agreement has begun to be implemented and tensions are already reducing.

Stephen O'Brien: As the Secretary of State will be aware, peace in the Congo is vital to the stability of Rwanda and Uganda; indeed, the refugee crisis in north-western Tanzania would be exacerbated if the conflict took root. Can she assure the House that she is looking carefully at discussions on aid to Rwanda and Uganda to help encourage their Presidents not to allow their tensions over the Congo to get out of hand?

Clare Short: I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns. If we are to get better development in Africa, we need to resolve a lot of conflicts. The conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a country as big as western Europe, is sucking in six neighbouring countries. A mineral-rich country, if properly governed, could be an engine of growth and development in Africa; it is essential to implement the Lusaka peace accords.
	Rwanda is currently in the DRC because people responsible for the Rwandan genocide are still trying to get back to Rwanda and complete it. It is essential that we encourage the Kabila Government to pursue disarmament of those negative forces so that we get peace and development for the whole region. However, I agree that we must prevent tension between Uganda and Rwanda from rising, as that could drive the whole process backwards.

Win Griffiths: In considering the great problems in Rwanda, will my right hon. Friend explain what other help is being given to east African countries like Tanzania, which has a huge refugee problem arising from the disturbances in Rwanda and, of course, in Burundi?

Clare Short: As my hon. Friend said, Tanzania has many refugees—300,000, I think, or something similar. A desperately poor country is playing host to lots of refugees because of the conflict in Burundi in particular and instability in the great lakes region in general. Tanzania has recently being doing well on reform; its completion date for debt relief is due to go to the boards of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank today and is likely to be approved. Despite its refugees burden, Tanzania, I am glad to say, is moving forward; the United Kingdom is supporting it in its big reform efforts.

Nick Hawkins: Does the Secretary of State not share our concern about the recent United Nations report which said that the increase by the Government in aid to countries like Rwanda and Uganda was being used to ensure that those countries did not spend money on the services that the Government should properly be funding, and asked whether those savings were being mis-spent on funding warlike approaches? Is there not a genuine concern that UK taxpayers' money is being misused for war? What is the Secretary of State going to do about that?

Clare Short: I am glad to inform the House that there is no such concern. The House should be proud that after—[Interruption.] It is difficult to hear what is being said in the Chamber. After the terrible genocide in Rwanda, during which nearly 1 million people were killed in the course of a few months by machete, under orders, and the UN was withdrawn rather than acting to protect the country, there was a massive refugee exodus and the country was left with nothing.
	The UK has been engaged in helping Rwanda to rebuild its national institutions and to drive forward reconciliation. Rwanda needs an end to the war in the Congo. It therefore needs the disarmament and demobilisation of the forces of the genocide, which are trying to get back into Rwanda to complete the genocide. We all need to put pressure on all the parties to implement the Lusaka peace accords—including the Kabila Government in Kinshasa, who are arming and supporting the forces that are invading Rwanda and Burundi and holding back the peace process.

Afghanistan

Paul Farrelly: What plans are being considered to rebuild the infrastructure of Afghanistan following the present conflict.

Hilary Benn: We are closely involved in planning for the future of Afghanistan. As well as supporting Ambassador Brahimi's efforts to establish a broadly based transitional government, we are working with the international community on reconstruction. Repair of the country's infrastructure will be an important part of this process. A document setting out the UK's contribution to an emergency recovery plan for the first 100 days has been placed in the Library.

Paul Farrelly: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench were as shocked as the rest of the House to learn that, in the conflict, Afghanistan did not have one functioning hospital. Does my hon. Friend agree that the international community should now commit itself early on, through the UN, to specific projects, including hospitals, to help rebuild Afghanistan, retain hearts and minds and shame all the warlords who reduced their own country to rubble?

Hilary Benn: I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. The re-establishment of a health system within Afghanistan, where life expectancy is 44 years, is an urgent priority, as is the re-establishment of a system of education so that at least half the next generation can have the opportunity to receive the education that they deserve. In the long term, that will make the greatest contribution to the re-building of the country. [Interruption.]

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is far too noisy and it must come to order.

Martin Smyth: About 50 per cent. of the people of Afghanistan are under 18, and about 60 per cent. of that age group die from preventable diseases. What steps are being taken, if there is a new infrastructure—this follows on from the question of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly)—to get to Afghanistan the medicines, supplies and vaccines that the population requires and which we take for granted?

Hilary Benn: A great deal of effort is already under way to ensure that essential medical supplies get into the country. As we heard in answer to an earlier question, the polio vaccination programme—overseen by UNICEF—has continued during the current difficulties. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that continued effort must be made to ensure that we meet the health needs of the Afghanistan population, which has suffered enormously.

Mike Gapes: My hon. Friend will be aware that many educated and skilled Afghan people have fled from the conflict over the past 20 years. They are living throughout the world, and many are in the UK. What steps is my hon. Friend's Department taking to assist the return of these people to help in the rebuilding of their country's infrastructure?

Hilary Benn: The most important contribution that we can make to addressing my hon. Friend's question is to work to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan. The sooner the reconstruction process can begin, and the sooner people who have fled the country—many of whom are educated, as my hon. Friend mentioned—see that there is a future and a prospect for their country, the greater will be the chance that they will commit themselves to returning to the country of their birth so that they can take part in helping to rebuild it.

Ivory Coast

Patrick Mercer: What actions her Department is taking to reduce the sex trade in young girls in the Ivory Coast.

Hilary Benn: We are working with our European partners and the International Labour Organisation to try to address this serious problem, which affects several west African states, including the Ivory Coast. It was also discussed at the recent EU-Africa summit, which has set up a taskforce to take action.

Patrick Mercer: In view of the Victoria Climbie case, what further action is being taken at United Kingdom airports to prevent sex slave children from being brought into the country?

Hilary Benn: The Victoria Climbie case, dreadful though it was, did not directly involve sexual exploitation. We have signed up to all the relevant conventions and we are working with the Home Office to ensure that action is taken against people who engage in this appalling trade. The European Union is negotiating a new framework agreement that will oblige all member states to make trafficking for sexual exploitation a specific criminal offence. The sooner we can get that into law, the more we can do to prevent that appalling trade.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

James Paice: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 November.

Tony Blair: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.

James Paice: I wonder whether the Prime Minister knows of the case of a single mother in my constituency who needed a hysterectomy—[Interruption.] I do not know what Labour Members find so funny about a lady needing a hysterectomy. She had to move her young children from a village school to London schools while she was in hospital, but the operation was cancelled only a day before it was due to take place. Does the Prime Minister have any idea of the distress and trauma that she and her children suffered? That is only one out of 1,000 operations that are cancelled each week under his national health service.

Tony Blair: The NHS performs 5.5 million operations every year, but of course I understand the immense pain and suffering caused to anyone whose operation is cancelled. For precisely that reason, we are introducing measures to provide that if an operation is cancelled for non-clinical reasons—for example, because there are not enough surgeons or beds—it will be performed within a specified period elsewhere. That is a change from the previous Government's policy.

Judy Mallaber: In a week when the Government's target of half of all pupils achieving five A to C grade GCSEs has been met a year early, will my right hon. Friend congratulate Aldercar community school in my constituency and its staff and pupils? The percentage of pupils who achieve such grades there has increased by 36 points in the past four years. That makes it one of the schools that has improved most in the country. Will he encourage other schools to follow its example to try to persuade every pupil, even their large numbers of statemented pupils, to enter for qualifications? Even in such difficult days abroad, does he agree that there is some good news at home?

Tony Blair: It is important that the target of 50 per cent. of pupils achieving five good GCSEs has been met. I believe that Tony Cooper, the head teacher at the school that my hon. Friend mentioned, was secondary head of the year in 2000. [Hon. Members: "Oh"] It is amazing how well informed I can be. He is one of a growing number of head teachers throughout the country whose results have improved significantly. Results in some of the new specialist schools have improved by 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. Taken with the primary school results, that represents a significant step change, which we must maintain and develop further.

Iain Duncan Smith: One of the great successes in the war against terrorism has been this country's role in holding together the coalition with the United States. Will the Prime Minister reaffirm that Britain and the United States remain as one in pursuing our objectives, namely, the removal of the Taliban, bringing bin Laden and al-Qaeda to justice and delivering humanitarian aid? Will he confirm that there is full agreement on how to pursue those objectives?

Tony Blair: Yes, I am happy to confirm that. There is complete agreement on the military objectives of removing the Taliban regime, which I am pleased to say is largely now achieved, and making sure that we pursue and hunt down the terrorist network of al-Qaeda, on which we have made considerable progress. There is complete agreement on making sure that we get the humanitarian aid into Afghanistan, which is absolutely vital; and on the political and diplomatic front, because there will be a meeting next Monday of all the various ethnic groupings in Afghanistan. That is a huge step forward. People would not have thought it remotely possible a short while ago. I also commend the attitude of the Northern Alliance in that regard. Many people feared that it would not join such a broad-based grouping, but clearly it is doing so.

Iain Duncan Smith: Families of troops up and down the country are obviously concerned about husbands and wives who may be on deployment. Will the Prime Minister, making it clear that some are already on deployment and possibly in action, confirm that the number of troops on stand-by remains the same as last week, that no decision has yet been taken on whether or when they will deploy and that any such decision will also be made in full consultation with the United States?

Tony Blair: Of course it will be made in full consultation with the United States. The troops were put on 48-hour stand-by for a purpose. Perhaps it is just as well that I say this, because it may be the reason for some of those incorrect stories arising. The situation in Afghanistan is obviously developing day by day. Two weeks ago, people would have been surprised at where we are today. In fact, they would have been astounded at the progress that has been made. A lot of people did not believe that the military strategy would succeed as fast as it did. They then worried that the Northern Alliance, having secured its victory, may, for example, run amok in Kabul or commit atrocities in different parts of the country. That has not happened.
	We have to keep the troops on stand-by to use as and when appropriate, but a degree of flexibility, far from being a hinderance, is the only sensible position to take. Both we and the United States—indeed, other coalition partners—have troops on stand-by. How and when and where we deploy them is a matter we can decide day by day. We should retain the flexibility to do so as we wish.

Laura Moffatt: Will the Prime Minister join me in recognising the considerable efforts being made by airline staff and those in associated industries to deal with the aftermath of 11 September? Does he recognise that much needs to happen to alleviate the pain of that industry? Will he give us assurances that all is being done to assist? Will he take the time to visit those hard-working staff at Gatwick, who would be pleased to see him?

Tony Blair: I appreciate the concerns of my hon. Friend's constituents at this time. Our airline and aviation industry, in common with industries round the world in that sector, has obviously experienced difficult times. We believe, however, that the European Commission is right to say that there should be no general bail-out of companies and it is important that all countries stick to those rules.
	The Commission has also set out guidelines that allow us to compensate for the four days after 11 September. We are considering how we can help companies within those guidelines, but it is important to keep to them. Of course, we shall work with my hon. Friend, her constituents and the companies concerned to do all that we can to help them through this time, recognising that the problem obviously affects aviation and airline industries everywhere in the world.

Charles Kennedy: When there are so many acute shortages in so many specialist staff areas of the health service, does the Prime Minister not think it ridiculous that many doctors who have served the health service with distinction for years, if not decades, are unable to apply for specialist consultant posts because they qualified in a non-European Union country?

Tony Blair: There is an issue here, and, as a result of examining it over time, the Government are already considering changing the rules that allow registrars then to train for a further period that allows them to become consultants. It arises because of the way that the rules have been applied rather than racism in the national health service, as has been suggested in certain quarters. That is an unfair charge to make. It is important, however, that we ensure that the rules are changed so that there can be obvious transparency about how people can qualify fully as consultants.

Charles Kennedy: The review is certainly welcome, but the Prime Minister rules out racism. Did he not hear the remarks on that very issue made on radio only this morning by the Secretary of State for Health? As the figures show, a vastly greater proportion of white doctors than non-white doctors achieve consultant status in the health service. Many of those non-white doctors qualified in the EU. There is an issue to address with urgency. The Health Secretary thinks so; surely the Prime Minister should give the House an undertaking that he will investigate and legislate.

Tony Blair: I think that what the Secretary of State for Health said was that we must look at any charges that were made very carefully.
	The right hon. Gentleman's first point related to the distinction between EU and non-EU people. That distinction is based on our membership of the European Union and the rules within the European Union, not on any rule that is discriminatory vis-à-vis race. Of course we will investigate any charges that are made, but it is important to realise that the particular issue raised this morning arose from rules that we are reviewing rather than from any attempt to discriminate between people of different races.

Kevin Hughes: After his no doubt healthy breakfast, did the Prime Minister have a chance to read the leader in The Guardian? Does he agree that affordable designer casualwear should be available in supermarkets throughout the country?

Tony Blair: I probably study Guardian editorials less than my hon. Friend does. As for designer wear, I am afraid we must abide by the rules set out in the court proceedings. That is regrettable, but obviously we study these matters very carefully.

Laurence Robertson: In 1997 there was a surplus of nursing home places in Gloucestershire; now there is a severe shortage. Whom does the Prime Minister blame for the crisis? [Hon. Members: "You."] Does he blame his own Government's regulations, or does he blame the Lib-Lab pact that runs Gloucestershire?

Tony Blair: That is a bit of an open goal, given that the last Government massively cut the number of beds in the national health service and elsewhere. In respect of nursing homes, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have provided a great deal of extra money for the NHS to deal with social services. [Interruption.]
	I must point out to Opposition Members that there is a clear difference between us and them. I entirely agree with them that nursing homes have complained about the level of fees and also about the lack of sufficient resources—which is precisely why we are increasing investment—but the difference between the hon. Gentleman and us is that we believe that the additional money should go in, while he wants to take it out.

Colin Burgon: In the light of unfortunate remarks made by a certain gentleman called Mr. Nigel de Gruchy, what message has the Prime Minister for the thousands of committed classroom assistants in my constituency and around the country—and for other staff who give valuable support to teachers, enabling them to deliver the results of which we have spoken today?

Tony Blair: As well as the increase in the number of teachers, there has been an increase of, I think, about 44,000 in the number of classroom assistants in the past few years. They do invaluable work in our classrooms. They are part of the changing pattern of teaching provision in our schools which will allow us to secure more teachers but also more classroom assistants and more information technology assistance. That in turn is part of the creation of a modern environment in which schooling can best take place. Classroom assistants play a vital role in the process.

James Arbuthnot: May we now have an answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson)? Nursing homes are closing all over the country because of new Government regulations, and as a result patients are blocking hospital beds when they could be cared for better elsewhere. Chase hospital in Bordon, in my constituency, is consequently in danger of losing beds. Does the Prime Minister agree that that is unacceptable, and will he look into it?

Tony Blair: I certainly will, but let me say this to the right hon. Gentleman. It is true that some private nursing homes are closing; as they will tell the right. hon. Gentleman, that is largely because of their worry about the level of fees. [Interruption.] Regulation has been mentioned, and it is true that some of them raise issues relating to the minimum wage; but I thought the Conservative party had changed its position on that. As for other regulations, they concern standards of care in nursing homes, and were supported by both parties in the House.
	In respect of the other point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, again, it is absolutely true that unless we have proper provision out in the community, there is greater pressure on hospital beds. Again, it is precisely for that reason that just a short time ago we announced still more money for social services, nursing homes and the national health service. That is money to which the Labour Government are committed and which he and his colleagues are committed to opposing.

Huw Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, which was introduced by the Government, can make a significant difference to the lives of Britain's 6 million carers, but that many carers are not aware of their rights under that Act? Will he do everything in his power to ensure that local authorities undertake the assessments, which they are required to conduct, and do what they can do to help Britain's 6 million carers?

Tony Blair: We are engaged at the moment in putting together an information campaign that allows carers to know exactly what they are entitled to. Incidentally, all the provisions of the Act will come into force in Wales as well, or they did do on 1 July. We totally understand that it is one thing to provide those rights for carers, but that unless they are aware that they have them and of how to exercise them, it will be a futile exercise. It is for that reason that we are making sure that they have the information that they need.

Iain Duncan Smith: The chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority said of investors' confidence in the Government:
	"tremendous damage has been done by Stephen Byers' actions".
	Does the Prime Minister agree?

Tony Blair: No, I do not, for the reasons that I gave the last time the right hon. Gentleman asked that question. I believe that it was absolutely essential that we stopped pouring billions and billions of pounds of public money into a company that was effectively bust and that was not being managed adequately. For that reason, we believe—this is the difference between us—that whereas he would pay the shareholders an additional £1 billion from taxpayers' money—

Theresa May: indicated dissent

Tony Blair: Oh yes, that is the position of the Conservative party. We believe that that money is better spent on the railways.

Iain Duncan Smith: But it was the right hon. Gentleman's Government who appointed Sir Alastair and who described him at that time as a "highly respected figure". Sir Alastair is also supported by investors on both sides of the Atlantic, one of whom, a head of an American investment fund, said:
	"We would now be unwilling to invest in any enterprise"—

Brian H Donohoe: Rubbish.

Iain Duncan Smith: Oh yes. He has said they would be unwilling to invest in
	"any enterprise regulated by the Government, because we couldn't be sure they would live up to their commitments".
	Why does the Prime Minister not admit that investors cannot trust this Government and that people who travel on the railways will have to put up with more delays and more taxes?

Tony Blair: If we followed the path that the right hon. Gentleman has set out, I assume that he would have carried on simply putting public money into Railtrack; alternatively, he would have us pay the £1 billion to the shareholders. I am afraid that in the end there has to be a simple choice: do we carry on putting that money in or do we say, "Enough is enough—we cannot put in any more money"? We have to restructure that industry in order to ensure that the money that goes in actually gets to improve the railway system.
	As I say, the difference between us is that we believe that every single penny piece of that money has to go to improving the rail network, whereas the right hon. Gentleman's position is that he would take literally £1 billion or more of that money from the taxpayer and give it to the shareholders. If he denies that perhaps he would say so when he gets to his feet. His shadow Chancellor and his shadow spokesman on the railways have both said that they agree with the shareholders' campaign for a minimum handout of £3.60 a share. If that is the case, it amounts to more than a £1 billion subsidy. So, the difference between us is that I say that the money goes to the railways, while he says that it should go to the investors.

Iain Duncan Smith: We are now clear about the Prime Minister: he would rather stand by a Minister than those thousands of investors who have lost money. Those investors are not fat cats, they are pensioners and people who work on the railways. What does he say to Mrs. Lloyd—[Interruption.] Labour Members do not care. Mrs. Lloyd lost all the money that she invested in Railtrack, money which was meant to be used to help a sick relative. She has written to the—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have told Mr. Donohoe before that he should not shout across the Chamber. I have told him before, and he will not do it again. It is out of order.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister must tell the House what he will say to Mrs. Lloyd, who has written to him five times about her lost investments and who has not received an answer. She is a lifelong Labour supporter, but she will not vote Labour again because of what this Government have done to her. In her letter, she writes:
	"Stephen Byers is a real con man who will say anything and do anything and hopes to get away with it."
	Is she not absolutely right? Is it not time that the Prime Minister told the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to go?

Tony Blair: The right hon. Gentleman has just made it clear in his answer that he would indeed back the claim of the investors. He has asked about an investor, so let us discuss the matter, because he has just accepted that he would back the claims of the investors that the Government should reimburse them at the level of the original share price at the time of privatisation. That would amount to a sum of money of more than £1 billion.
	I accept entirely that small investors will be affected by what has happened to Railtrack. However, the only choice that the Government can make is whether to bail out people in that situation, or say that we cannot go on putting billions and billions of pounds of public money into a failed company.
	In the end, no matter how many times the Leader of the Opposition gets to his feet, he must accept that, when it comes to a choice between putting the money into the railways and bailing out investors, he would bail out the investors. I am afraid that that is the difference between the Government, who believe in rail transport as a public service, and the Opposition, who do not.

Stephen McCabe: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the news this week that the courts are increasingly making use of antisocial behaviour orders? What about people in my constituency of Hall Green—and, I dare say, in many other places—who are denied the relief from persistent harassment, intimidation and distress that these orders provide? What should they do when their local authority, and/or the police, persistently fail to use the powers that Parliament has given them?

Tony Blair: Antisocial behaviour orders have a very important role to play, and almost 500 have been granted up and down the country. Any resistance to their use by police and local authorities would be unfortunate, as there is nothing worse for people than to live on estates or difficult streets with those who engage in petty theft or drug dealing. The antisocial behaviour order can play a real role in reducing tensions and disorder in local communities. I urge them to be used, in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere.

Simon Burns: Will the Prime Minister please tell me why the latest Department of Health figures show that the number of people in this country waiting more than 18 months for treatment has increased from two to 208?

Tony Blair: The increase, as I understand it, is limited almost entirely to a certain number of trusts. [Hon. Members: "Where are they?"] Each of those trusts is being given a dedicated team to reduce the 18-month waiting list. However, the hon. Gentleman did not point out that the latest figures show that the number of patients waiting three months has fallen. Overall, waiting lists have fallen, which means that hundreds of thousands of people are waiting a shorter time for treatment. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but waiting lists since the Labour party came to power are down, not up, as are waiting times. Down too, for example, are cardiac waiting times and the time it takes to refer patients for cancer treatment.
	The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said that 208 people are waiting more than 18 months. That is unacceptable, but I shall simply point out that 70 per cent. of people get their operations within three months, and that more than half a million operations are now being performed every year. The 208 figure is wrong, and we should change it, but we should not forget that the vast bulk of people are getting the treatment that they need.

Mark Lazarowicz: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the collapse of Atlantic Telecom, which has caused severe difficulty for thousands of telephone subscribers, particularly businesses which are heavily dependent on the telephone? Will the Prime Minister take action to ensure that the lines, and specifically the existing telephone numbers, of the businesses concerned are protected before the service is withdrawn in four days time?

Tony Blair: I understand that my hon. Friend is meeting the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness at the Department of Trade and Industry later today to discuss the concerns of Atlantic Telecom's customers. I also know that Oftel is having discussions with Atlantic's administrators. This is a serious problem, because it can affect many business customers and other people. My hon. Friend the Minister also met the Director General of Oftel yesterday. I hope very much that we can have a smooth transition to a new company, responsible for the new business, but it has to be sorted out with the administrators and Oftel as well as with my hon. Friend the Minister.

Teddy Taylor: Is the Prime Minister aware of the serious damage done by the repeated press reports, which are obviously officially inspired, about the differences between him and the Chancellor of the Exchequer? There is one detailed report that the Chancellor used bad language—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"]—and stamped his feet after a private meeting. If the Prime Minister is not prepared to say where these reports come from, can he at least give us an assurance that he is not picking on the Chancellor for not being as enthusiastic about the euro as the Prime Minister himself?

Tony Blair: One thing is for sure—I knew that we would get to Europe one way or another. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question, because it gives me the opportunity to say that according to the OECD, we are predicted to grow at the fastest rate of any G7 country. We have the lowest inflation in Europe and the highest employment rate of any of our major competitors. We have the largest share of foreign direct investment in the European Union and we have halved youth unemployment. That is down to the work of the Chancellor, and he has done that work better than any Conservative Chancellor anyone can remember.

Martin Linton: In view of the very high rate of asthma in my constituency, will the Prime Minister look at yesterday's report on lung diseases from the British Thoracic Society, showing that they kill even more people than heart diseases or cancer, and occur at nearly twice the European average? Will he ensure that we tackle those diseases with as much determination as we tackle heart disease and cancer by offering medical treatment and preventive measures such as action on air pollution and smoking?

Tony Blair: I should like to make one point about the British Thoracic Society's report, which compared Britain with other European countries. One would not realise it from the coverage this morning, but the report was based on data from 1970 to 1998. The number of people dying from lung cancer has actually fallen by 1,500 in the past few years. Some 60,000 people were helped last year to stop smoking, and access to cancer specialists is faster than before. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that there is a great deal more to do. In particular, far more research needs to be done, which is why the Government are funding a multi-million pound research programme specifically into the issues he raised.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Prime Minister aware that many Conservative Members greatly admire his handling of the current world crisis? However, is he also aware that if we had in place a common foreign policy, it would not be the Prime Minister travelling the world but probably Romano Prodi? If we had in place a Euro-army, the Prime Minister would almost certainly have much less control over his British forces, currently on stand-by. Will he confirm that he will abandon completely all further moves towards European integration?

Tony Blair: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words at the beginning of his question, but his intervention sums up the problems of Conservative Eurosceptics. First, the hon. Gentleman said that we should not have a common foreign and security policy, but we have someone in the European Union who is already in charge of the common foreign and security policy—Mr. Solana.
	Secondly, the hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the European Commission should not be involved in European defence. Under the European defence proposals, the European Commission is not involved in European defence. Thirdly, he seemed to think that we are setting up some sort of Euro-army. We are not. We are agreeing to have the capability in Europe should we wish, individually as countries, to decide to commit ourselves to peacekeeping or humanitarian missions. We can see why that is necessary from what is happening in Macedonia and in the Balkans today. We have the capability to form a proper defence force so that we can provide for keeping the parties apart in Macedonia and elsewhere, and provide the opportunity to build a peace process there. A European defence capability is simply an additional weapon in our armoury for defence purposes, alongside NATO. It is entirely sensible. What is happening in the Balkans shows why it is necessary and it would not make the slightest difference to anything that we are doing in Afghanistan at the moment.

Bill Tynan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a report in the Daily Record claimed that service men and women on stand-by for Afghanistan have no suitable clothing for the winter that they would endure there? Will he investigate that claim and, if it is true, do all he can to alleviate the problem?

Tony Blair: I will examine the claim, but many such claims are made and when they are investigated are found to be absolutely baseless. I assure my hon. Friend that the British troops, who are among the best trained and equipped of any in the world, will be properly equipped for any mission that they may undertake in Afghanistan.
	I wish to take the opportunity to say that if we look at what British troops are doing in Afghanistan, the Balkans and Sierra Leone, it is clear that they are making a huge contribution to world security and peace. Of course they must have the proper equipment and we will ensure that they do so.

Points of Order

John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you prior notice. It concerns 11 straightforward, factual questions tabled by me on 12 November and which related to Treasury involvement in decisions on Railtrack, to which the spectacularly unilluminating reply from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was:
	"Treasury Ministers and officials have discussions with a wide range of organisations, including other Government Departments, on a wide range of subjects on a regular basis."—[Official Report, 19 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 144W.]
	Given the code of practice on access to Government information, the resolution of this House of 19 March 1997 that Ministers should comply with it, and the fact that most of my questions do not concern the detail of internal opinion, advice, recommendation, consultation or deliberation, but simply the dates of discussion and attendance at meetings, is not the Treasury's refusal to answer those questions an insult to Parliament, a breach of the code and a justification for a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am not responsible for ministerial answers. That is a problem for the Minister, not for the Speaker.

Chris Grayling: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hear what you say, but Members regard you as a key guardian of the interests of the House. On behalf of a constituent who has experienced rising insurance premiums, I tabled a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about insurance premiums since 11 September. I asked the Chancellor what representations he had received from other bodies on that matter, to which I received the reply:
	"We receive representations on a wide range of subjects from a variety of organisations and individuals."
	What expectations can hon. Members have that Ministers will answer their questions?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must be persistent with Ministers. That is the best advice I can give him.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to hon. Members who want to speak further on that point of order that I have made my views clear.

Nicholas Soames: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I intrude a little further? Although I understand precisely when you say that you cannot control ministerial answers, surely the Chair is right to issue guidance to Ministers that questions should be properly and fully answered.

Mr. Speaker: The Government issue guidance to Ministers, not the Speaker.

Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last week, I raised with you the report of the parliamentary ombudsman, which stated that
	"this is the first occasion on which a Government department has refused to accept the conclusions of the Ombudsman on a question of disclosure of information".
	Following my point of order, I went to the Table Office and tabled a series of questions to the Deputy Prime Minister, who, according to the Government, is responsible for the central secretariat which is
	"the Government's central link with the parliamentary ombudsman".
	Every question I table is transferred. How can I get the Minister to answer the questions, Mr. Speaker? Could you please advise?

Mr. Speaker: I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman, but in the end it is not a matter for the Chair.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that these matters are not going to be pursued. I have made my case and I certainly cannot keep pursuing the matter.

Ann Widdecombe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I accept everything that you have just said, but could you perhaps give us some advice? I ask for your guidance on holding the Executive to account. If we cannot rely on rulings from the Chair, could you please tell us where we should go and how we can hold them to account? It is a simple question.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Lady must keep at Ministers. That is the best advice I can give her.

Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that there is a resolution of the House, which was passed in 1997, with regard to the duty of Ministers to make full and candid answers. Would you please advise the House what it can do when there is a manifest breach of the resolution of the House—as there frequently now is?

Mr. Speaker: Knowing that the resolution is there, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must persist. Other Members must persist. That is the best advice I can give in the circumstances.

Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course, we welcome your guidance and indeed respect it, as ever. You have told us, quite rightly, that the Government are responsible for the answers—or lack of answers—that Ministers give. But, Mr. Speaker, you are the custodian of the relationship that must exist between the Government and this House of Commons. I am not asking for an answer now, Mr. Speaker, but I ask you to reflect on how you believe you can guide the House further to make effective both the ministerial code and the relationship that should exist between the House and the Government. It would appear to have broken down completely, given the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). We should welcome your further guidance, Mr. Speaker, perhaps after further reflection, on what we can do other than repeatedly putting questions and repeatedly failing to receive answers from Ministers.

Mr. Speaker: I have some sympathy with what hon. Members have said. The right hon. Gentleman is right—let me reflect on the matter and I shall come back to the House.

Michael Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is not further to the previous point of order, because I think that I did not make a bad reply to the shadow Leader of the House. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) should quit while he is ahead.

Michael Jack: I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, about the status of the contents of "Erskine May". In your process of reflection, may I ask you to consider the advice therein, particularly as it reflects on the contents of questions?

Mr. Speaker: I shall consider that matter.

Litter and Fouling of Land By Dogs

Bob Blizzard: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision relating to litter and the fouling of land by dogs and to allow a local authority to retain the revenue from fixed penalty notices for such offences issued in its area for the purposes of enforcement.
	The last time I led a debate on this subject in the House was at 5 o'clock one morning—an Adjournment debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) when he was a Minister. I am pleased that today he is a supporter of the Bill.
	Litter is pollution, and I include dog fouling under the heading of litter. It is pollution in its most basic, common and widespread form. It has a very simple cause: people drop it, or permit their dogs to drop it, as a result of laziness, thoughtlessness, carelessness, plain disregard or sometimes even loutishness. It is very visible and it spoils the built and the natural environments. It is also a health risk.
	Litter includes rotting material, broken glass, jagged metal, dangerous objects and cigarette ends, all of which can be picked up by young children. Worst of all, dog dirt can transmit toxocariasis to children, which can damage their eyesight, liver and lungs. About 100 children a year contract the disease in that way.
	Litter pollution has a much simpler solution than most other forms of pollution. It does not take catalytic converters, international protocols, European directives, an integrated transport policy or a climate change levy to tackle it. The answer is simple—do not drop litter. Unfortunately, the long-standing culture in our country is one in which we live and walk about in litter. We try not to put our feet in dog dirt. We pay others to clear the whole lot up, and then moan that it is not all picked up.
	We pay a total of £400 million a year in council tax for litter to be picked up. My council has to spend more than £500,000 a year and rubbish still accumulates in certain corners. What a sad way to have to spend money, and we must surely be mad if we carry on like this.
	We have laws against dropping litter and dog fouling, both of which are offences, with maximum fines of £1,000, or even £2,500 in certain circumstances. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 placed statutory duties on councils and introduced fixed penalty fines of £25. The Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 put dog fouling on the same basis as litter, but the law is not being enforced.
	In 1996, in England and Wales, there were only 626 prosecutions in magistrates courts for littering, resulting in 468 convictions. By 1999, the figure had fallen to 501 prosecutions, with just 390 convictions. In 1999–2000, only 2,970 fixed penalty notices for littering and 1,538 for dog fouling were issued—this in a country of 56 million people. That low figure is not because not much litter is being dropped.
	In my county of Suffolk, there seem to be only about five or six convictions a year, and in my district of Waveney, there have been no recent prosecutions and no fixed penalties for litter at all, with just one recorded fixed penalty for dog fouling since the 1996 Act came into force. Why is the law not being enforced? The answer is obvious: councils simply do not have the means to do so.
	At the moment, councils have to return all the revenue from fixed penalty fines to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, although it amounts only to about £70,000 a year in total across the country—a measure of how little enforcement goes on. The average court fine is only £90, and, of course, those fines go to the Home Office.
	Although 98 per cent. of councils have appointed dog wardens, that amounts to only one or two people in most cases. Only 47 out of 474 councils employ litter wardens—again, usually only two or three people. That is hardly an army, armed with fixed penalty notices, that can realistically tackle the millions of litter droppers and the 5.4 million dog-owning households that produce 1,000 tonnes of faeces daily. In addition, it costs councils £500 to take a prosecution to court.
	People are concerned about the problem. As many hon. Members will know, such local quality of life and clean street issues are those most frequently mentioned when we knock on people's doors. A Tidy Britain Group survey two or three years ago on people's attitudes to local environmental quality issues found that dog fouling, at 80 per cent., and littered streets, at 60 per cent., were right at the top of the list. Those same concerns regularly fill the letters page of my local paper, the Lowestoft Journal.
	Down the years, we have had campaigns—many led by the Tidy Britain Group—and we now have more litter bins in the country than ever before. We also have bins for doggy bags. However, the sad conclusion is that, when it comes to litter, education does not appear to work—and I say that as an ex-teacher. In fact, some of the most littered places I have seen are school playgrounds.
	Certainly, people such as the driver of the Renault Clio, with the registration S627 WOR, whom I saw on 8 October at a roundabout near Beckton in east London, are beyond educating. Sitting in a traffic jam, I watched him lob a huge bag of McDonald's debris out of his car window. As we were stuck in traffic, I stepped out of my car, picked up the rubbish and asked him whether he would take it home or to a bin. I thought for a moment that I might have succeeded as he accepted it from me, but he just threw it out the other side of his car as I walked back to mine. The only answer for such people is to apply the well-established principle of making the polluter pay, thereby handing out a deterrent to other litterers.
	The Bill would require councils to retain the revenue from fixed penalty fines for the specific purpose of enforcing the litter laws. Councils would then be able to—and, indeed, would have to—employ the wardens necessary to tackle the problem. We would change the culture relating to litter. Fixed penalties can work; a high proportion of those actually issued are paid.
	The Bill involves that old friend of the Treasury—hypothecation. There are precedents. Councils finance the enforcement of residents parking schemes from the fines dished out. It is the same with off-street parking, and we are now using the fixed penalty fines for speeding detected by cameras to set up more cameras. We spent years trying to educate people to wear seat belts and crash helmets, but it was only when we introduced laws that were enforced did people change their ways. It could be the same with litter.
	The Bill would make the polluter pay. It would cost the Government virtually nothing, and we could spend much of the £400 million a year litter clear-up bill on more constructive things.In April, the Prime Minister said the Government were minded to go down that route. I offer this Bill as a suitable vehicle.
	The Bill would be popular. Last night, Meridian television carried out a telephone poll. It received the biggest response ever with almost 6,700 calls, 97 per cent. of them in favour of my proposals.
	Litter will continue to blight our environment only for as long as we permit it. Let us get serious and enforce the law of the land, so that we can have cleaner streets, cleaner communities and a cleaner country.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bob Blizzard, Siobhain McDonagh, Mr. Alan Meale, Lawrie Quinn, Joan Ryan and Mr. Jonathan Shaw.

Litter and Fouling of Land By Dogs

Mr. Bob Blizzard accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision relating to litter and the fouling of land by dogs and to allow a local authority to retain the revenue from fixed penalty notices for such offences issued in its area for the purposes of enforcement: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 May, and to be printed [Bill 53].

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, in accordance with the resolution of the Programming Committee of 20th November and pursuant to the Programme Order of 19th November (Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, on consideration and on Third Reading of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill)—
	(1) proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall, so far as not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at eleven o'clock on the second allotted day;
	(2) those proceedings shall be taken on each of the allotted days as shown in the second column of the following Table and shall be taken in the order so shown, and shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at the times specified in the third column of the Table.
	
		
			 Allotted day Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings  
			 First day New Clauses relating to the duration of the Act and reports to Parliament, Clause 123, Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 and 3, Schedule 2, Clauses 4 to 6, Schedule 3, Clauses 7 to 17, Schedule 4, Clauses 18 to 20 6.00 p.m. 
			  Clauses 21 to 35 8.30 p.m.  
			  Clauses 106 to 119 10.00 p.m.  
			 Second day Clauses 36 to 42 6.30 p.m.  
			  Clauses 43 to 58, Schedule 5, Clauses 59 to 70, Schedule 6, Clauses 71 to 87 8.00 p.m.  
			  Clauses 88 to 100, Schedule 7, Clauses 101 to 105, Clauses 120 and 121, Schedule 8, Clause 122, Clauses 124 and 125, Remaining New Clauses, New Schedules—[Beverley Hughes.]  11.00 p.m.

Oliver Letwin: I do not want to trouble the House for long because we want to move on to the substantive matters, which are of huge importance. However, I have a question and want to register some concerns.
	My right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House has explained to me that the programme motion as replicated in today's Order Paper is slightly different in a signal respect, from the Government's point of view, from the allocation of time as agreed. It does not refer to proceedings after 11 pm on the second day, which as I understand it are meant to include Report and Third Reading. Will the Minister illuminate the House on that troublesome point?
	On a more serious note, I want to put on record our belief, which I am sure that Liberal Democrat Members and, I suspect, many Labour Members share, that it is wrong for the Lords to be allotted several days to consider the Bill when this House has one day for Second Reading and the greater part of two days exclusively for the purpose of scrutinising the Bill.
	We have agreed a sensible division of the two days with the Government. I do not quibble about that. They have been generous in allocating the time as the Opposition thought fit, but it is not possible to allocate two days in a way that enables the House to have sufficient time to scrutinise and pursue matters that are of the utmost importance in both our opinion and that of the Government. That is why, despite the agreement on the allocation of time, I ask my hon. Friends to vote against the motion. I also urge them to express their views, but to be brief so that we can move on as quickly as possible to the substance of the debate.

Paul Tyler: I want to echo a couple of the points made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). Although it is of course true that we are operating within strict limits, and we object strongly to the overall limits, there has been agreement on how to divide up the time, which is better for our business. In particular, I hope that when there is general agreement on amendments, we will deal with them speedily.
	It is surely ridiculous, however, that the Home Secretary told us earlier this week that it had taken no fewer than 10 weeks to produce the Bill, yet if we are lucky we will be able to spend 10 minutes on some of its most important aspects, some of which will have a great effect on the civil liberties and human rights of our fellow citizens and other nationals. It is extraordinary that, once again, we have to rely on the other place, at the other end of the building, to give vigilant scrutiny to legislation. As the country's elected representatives, we should be responsible for the vigilant scrutiny of matters that affect the nation's civil rights.
	The Bill contains many diffuse issues. They cannot be easily bound up and dealt with together. Although it is important to cover the wider issues within the limited time available, we, too, believe that the motion puts the House in a difficult position.

Mark Fisher: I, too, want briefly to add my support to what has been said and to register my grave concern about the motion. I interpret the fact that the Minister moved it formally as enthusiasm for getting on to the meat of the debate. That is the most charitable view, although it is strange that the Government do not want to say anything in their defence given the importance of the motion and the time that we have to debate it. They do not seem to want to explain why we have only two days. I hope that the Minister will speak at the conclusion of the debate and give us a glimpse of the Government's thinking. I am sure that she did not mean to be discourteous to House, and that she wished to hurry on to the important matters to be discussed, but I think that we are owed an explanation from the Government, however brief.
	I entirely concur with the hon. Members for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that two days is not only ridiculously short, but is a dangerously short time in which to consider things that change some of the fundamental principles of our legal system, albeit, if there are changes to the sunset clauses, for a finite amount of time. Nevertheless, for the next five years at least, our legal system will have a very different tone and implication.
	It is not just the two days to which I object, but the fact that today, in the two and a half hours between 6 o'clock and 8.30, we shall have to consider the very serious question whether we want to go down the road to internment. We have had experience of internment in this country—let alone in Northern Ireland—twice in the last century, and we should have a chance to talk about it. Two and a half hours to consider the whole of part 4 is wholly inadequate given the grave seriousness of deciding to go for internment.

David Winnick: I understand the concern about programming, which I share to some extent, if not entirely, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend has had the opportunity to see The Times today, because it gives a great deal of coverage to a fundamentalist Muslim cleric in Britain who has been sentenced to death in Jordan and is involved, it is alleged, with a terrorist network. The Spanish judicial authorities who have been investigating the case find it very difficult to understand why no action is being taken in Britain. There is some urgency, therefore, in connection with several people in this country. The public are, no doubt, wondering how on earth those people were ever allowed in. The Muslim cleric was apparently allowed in about seven years ago. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand the concern among the British public, even though I understand his concern, and that of others, over the programme motion.

Mark Fisher: Of course I understand those concerns, although I have not seen the reference in The Times to which my hon. Friend referred.
	I stress that hon. Members' wish to consider these things is absolutely not, in this instance, a desire to reiterate or delay. Indeed, I believe that the fear shared by all who have grave worries about the Bill is that we shall not even reach some clauses. The idea of this, of all pieces of legislation, not having each of its clauses fully discussed and each of its implications considered is frightening.

Tam Dalyell: Why not arrest and try the individual to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) referred?

Mark Fisher: I believe that when the House goes into Committee we shall discuss whether adequate powers to deal with some of these cases are already on the statute book.

David Winnick: There is, of course, an argument that the Home Secretary should explain why, if these allegations are true, the cleric has not been charged. However, if we work on the basis that it is not possible to bring charges—my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) would know, as we all do, that in such cases it is not always possible—should there not nevertheless be concern, which I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has already admitted, over cases of the type that I have mentioned, and which The Times publicises today?

Mark Fisher: No one doubts the concern in the country and in all parts of the House, but the question that will be put to Ministers, with great force, and to which they must respond during the debate, is, in what regard does the present state of the law not allow us to deal with these things? Many of us were lucky enough to be in the House when my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), with her considerable experience of these matters as a Queen's Counsel, spoke at the end of the Second Reading debate. She made what appeared to me, as a layman, a very plausible case to the effect that there was plenty of elasticity in the existing statutes to do exactly what the Government want.

Douglas Hogg: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to make the point that although the hon. Member for Walsall, North may be right to say that there is a degree of urgency regarding some individuals who cannot now be prosecuted, he should remember that the Bill contains many measures that, on any view, are not urgent; for example, on incitement to religious hatred. Why should we be conducting our scrutiny on such a fundamental issue in only two hours or so?

Mark Fisher: I have great sympathy with the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I have no doubt that he will express them when we come to those clauses.
	We should proceed more slowly not only to achieve the quality of scrutiny that comes from debate, but to give us time to listen to expert voices from outside the House. There is a purpose behind the slow, measured and sometimes frustrating pace at which we pass legislation, which is to give us time to mull things over, sift out what is essential and listen to those who will be affected.
	Last week, hon. Members on both sides of the House who are interested in this subject would have received the first batch of submissions from the organisations with the most immediate and pressing interest in the Bill, such as Liberty and Amnesty International. I was interested to find that today's post brought a submission from the Confederation of British Industry. It would never have occurred to me that the interests of its members would be affected by this legislation, but its submission concerned the data implications of the Bill. Inevitably, other organisations and groups will want to make representations once they have had a chance to read the Bill, think about it and consult their members. After next Monday night, or within a very few days of it, it will effectively be too late to do so.

Norman Baker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members have spent more time in Committee on the Proceeds of Crime Bill than has been allotted for the entire Committee stage of this Bill, and we have only reached clause 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Bill? That is important legislation, but it is not as important as this.

Mark Fisher: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.
	It is important that there should be more time to consider the Bill, not only for Members and those outside, but for Ministers. They need to consider what they want to achieve, although of course they have been thinking about that for the past 10 weeks, and to think how their intentions should be phrased. Moreover, that consideration must be tested in the House and against the opinion of outside experts and those who will be affected. I am sure that Ministers have paid attention to the Second Reading debate, to this debate and to the submissions from outside bodies, but I suspect that they have not given themselves enough time to take account of all that. The Government have already tabled amendments, and I am glad because some of them are sympathetic and constructive, but they have not given themselves enough time for the wider considerations.
	One has only to look, as I did this morning, at the debates in the House in 1940, when internment was introduced, to see that there was a huge gap between the Government's intentions about how internment would work, as expressed in the good, sincere thinking of the then Home Secretary, Sir John Anderson, and the implementation of the policy by chief constables throughout the country. It escalated beyond the control of Parliament and the Government, despite their modest intentions.
	The liberal protestations of regret that characterised the introduction of the policy were soon swept away by the flood of opinion about its implementation, which put a very different spin on the matter. That led to one of the most extraordinary and regrettable instances in our legal system, in which opponents of Nazism and Italian fascism were bundled together with Nazis and fascists in categories A, B and C and transported to the dominions or incarcerated here in appalling circumstances. Parliament was given assurances by the Government, which I am sure were well intentioned, but events worked out very differently.
	We need to learn from history. There is a terrifying mood abroad in our society—a lack of interest in the past and a lack of understanding that the past is with us. The past is what we are; it is a live thing. I fear that the Government too often think that the past is out of date and irrelevant. It is not. We have very recent examples of internment in 1940 and 1914 and we should be learning from them.

Brian Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman says that Ministers have not given themselves enough time. Will not he go further and recognise—anybody who has had the privilege of being a Minister will do so—that if very short timetables are set, the whole structure is geared to defending what is there, because changing it takes longer than not doing so. There is not only not enough time, but a psychological pressure on Ministers not to listen.

Mark Fisher: All hon. Members will pay particular attention to that contribution, not only because of the right hon. Gentleman's experience in government, but because of his understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland. He has given us wise words.
	I make a late protest: we have not given ourselves time either for the particular, in relation to some clauses, or for the general, in relation to the whole Bill. I do not want to delay the House a moment further, but I express my hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will at least tell us briefly why the Bill is so pressing that we could not allow slightly more measured time for consideration and why the Government could not allow themselves more time to think about their response to the concerns expressed in the House and by people outside. 4.6 pm

Douglas Hogg: I rise to support what my old friend the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has said, which is of great importance to this House. I hope that the Under-Secretary will not misunderstand me when I say that it is very regrettable that she did not introduce this short debate by giving us some indication as to why we are proceeding in this manner. She will forgive me if I remind her of what I told the Home Secretary on Monday. As I said then, some parts of the Bill may be urgent— I am not persuaded, but I recognise that such parts may exist—but it is clear from any viewpoint that there are large parts that are not urgent. The proper thing to do was to identify the provisions that were truly urgent, incorporate them into a short Bill and, if necessary, clear the parliamentary timetable—for example, last night's business could have been rescheduled—in order to give enough time to the business that we are now considering.
	I think that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central—it may have been my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)—spoke about the time that is being given in the other place, where I believe that six days have been allotted. When this House does not properly consider legislation, it does two things. First, we destroy the implied bargain that exists between the citizen and the state in a democracy. When the House imposes obligations, which are always backed by penal sanctions, there is an implied bargain that we, the citizens' representatives, have properly considered the legislation and expressed an opinion about it. The truth is, however, that we will not do so tonight or on Monday. The bargain is being destroyed. When the electorate see that important measures are being introduced without discussion in this place, they will lose their understanding and respect for democracy.
	Secondly, I say to the Government that, from time to time, people complain about the way in which the judges are extending the convention and becoming interventionist in their use of judicial review. Indeed, that point has been made by the Home Secretary and others on a number of occasions. One of the reasons why the judiciary is much more interventionist than it was, say, 20 or 30 years ago, is that it understands that this House is not properly discharging its functions. If this House fails properly to safeguard the liberty of the subject, it is not in the least surprising that other people try other methods of enshrining that liberty. That is why we see the interventionism of judges. Indeed, it also explains why I gave broad support to the incorporation in domestic law of the European convention on human rights. I recognise that that gives the judges a legislative function, but we ourselves are not performing our function.
	I shall conclude shortly, but I want to make one more point. On any view, the clauses that deal with internment without trial are of fundamental importance; many amendments to them have been tabled. Theoretically, however, those clauses are to be discussed between 6 pm and 8.30 pm. If we have a division at 6 pm, as is likely, we will have two and a quarter hours at the very most in which we will be asked to destroy a fundamental principle of British law—that a person cannot be sent into detention without proper trial. We have two and a quarter hours to destroy a principle that has underpinned British law for 500 years.
	Who, in all conscience, believes that that is right? It cannot be right; we are sending people to prison on the suspicion or belief of the Home Secretary, without allowing them a proper appeal of any kind. We are going to approve that in two and a quarter hours, so the majority of the amendments will not be discussed. That cannot be right and is deeply offensive.

Kevin McNamara: I support entirely the argument advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. However, is it not a little strange coming from his lips? He was a Member of the Government who did away with the right to silence and sought to gag the BBC without any vote at all, just statements in the House.

Douglas Hogg: Ever since I came to the House in 1979, I have defended the cause of liberty and the law; I stand for freedom, liberty and the law. Because of departmental responsibilities, I have not always been in a position to push that cause forward, but I have always believed in that principle. When I first came to the House in 1979, I was keen to bring about an elected second Chamber, and argued for that within my party as hard as I could. I recognise that the House is becoming an instrument of oppression; what we are doing tonight is part of that process.

Beverley Hughes: rose—

Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In no way do I wish to offend my hon. Friend the Minister. However, I was brought up in a world in which business motions, particularly contentious ones, were answered, not by the Minister who had responsibility for the legislation, but by a senior Government business manager. It may be out of fashion, but a Cabinet Minister should have been present to hear what was said on the Floor of the House—[Interruption.] Well, I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to Richard Crossman when he was Leader of the House. On several occasions when he heard what was said in the House, he got on to the Prime Minister and business was altered; that is a matter of fact. It may be unfashionable to say so, but that is how it should be. The Leader of the House should respond to our debate.

Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can I just add a matter for consideration by you and Mr. Speaker? On Monday night, we debated the order on derogation from the Human Rights Act 1998. The Home Secretary may have had a personal reason for his behaviour, but I am making political and constitutional point, not a personal one. He left early in our debate and was not present for any of it. For the first time in many years, we decided to put the matter to Parliament which, with Government support, voted to take us out of part of the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act. It would be helpful to have an assurance from the Government that Secretaries of State should be present for matters of major constitutional importance, however good their junior Ministers, and that they are present both for the debate and the vote at the end.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not in the interests of the House to develop this point during a debate on what is already a timetabled motion. I am sure that what has been said has been heard. It may be re-attended to on another occasion. For the moment, the Chair is dealing with the Minister who is available.

Beverley Hughes: For those Members who have not noticed, there is a Secretary of State on the Government Front Bench who will have heard what has been said. My right hon. Friend will take part in the debate later this afternoon.
	In the interests of trying to move to the substance of the Bill and in the interests of those Members who wish to speak in Committee, I shall try to deal with some of the points that have been raised. The shadow Home Secretary, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), asked why the motion does not refer to events after 11 pm on the second day. That is because we are not debating now the programme motion that allocated time. The programme motion before us is not the motion that is relevant to the points that most Members have made. That motion was put to the House on Monday. If the hon. Gentleman refers to that motion, he will see that it refers to Report and Third Reading taking place from 11 pm to 12 pm. That was the motion that allocated the overall time provision.

Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you be good enough to tell us whether we are right in thinking that the motion to which the Minister is referring—namely, Monday's motion—was not even debatable?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter not for the Chair but for debate.

Beverley Hughes: I was pointing out in response to the shadow Home Secretary—

Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the Minister. I understand now the point that she is making.

Beverley Hughes: As for the general point that a number of Members have raised, the overall time allocated to the Bill in the House is the product of a difficult balance. As Members, we must balance what is required in relation to the urgency of the situation. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) for pointing that out. We are in a state of public emergency. We are responding to urgent events, and it is important that we get the Bill on to the statute book as quickly as possible. We must balance that with what is required in terms of public expectations.
	How will the public expect us to behave when dealing with a Bill whose contents are a response to the events of 11 September? I think that the public will expect us to suspend our normal expectations and deal with these matters in an appropriate way, but in a way that responds to the urgency of the situation and to their expectations. We must balance these two points with what is required in terms of scrutiny. I accept, and so does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that many of the matters that we are talking about in considering the Bill are of the grave seriousness to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) referred.
	We have the difficult job of balancing competing imperatives when we decide the amount of time that we need to allocate and the speed with which we need to get the Bill on to the statute book.

Brian Mawhinney: Will the Minister explain, as she is speaking for the business managers, how it is that a third day of consideration, tomorrow or on Friday, which would not have extended the overall time during which the Bill is to be considered in the Chamber, proved to be impossible for the Government?

Beverley Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman will know from his experience as well as I that those matters were discussed between the usual channels well in advance of the time scale being agreed. The time that we have allocated is a product of that process, with which he is well familiar.

Eric Forth: I wondered when the Under-Secretary would get around to that point. Discussions took place between the usual channels, of which I regrettably find myself part. It was made clear at the time—before we knew the Bill's detailed contents—that although we recognised the urgency of key parts of the measure, the addition of many other elements would change the picture. It is inaccurate of the Government to portray the whole Bill as having been agreed.

Beverley Hughes: As far as I can recall, the only addition to the Bill since the Home Secretary's statement on 15 October—the provisions on bribery and corruption—was included with the consent of all parties. The Home Secretary made a detailed statement about the extent of the Bill, and that formed the basis of our discussions. As soon as we had a draft Bill, we shared it with Opposition spokespeople.
	In the interests of hon. Members who want to speak about the substance of the Bill—that is why we are here—I shall conclude. I regret that the Opposition will extend the debate on the programme motion by voting. That will take away more time from discussion of the substance of the measure.

Edward Garnier: That was the most disappointing ministerial performance that I have witnessed for many years. [Interruption.] It is no good the Home Secretary attending the debate late and chuntering. We are debating the purpose of Parliament. If the Labour party, in the guise of that frightful Government, believes that it can ram stuff through, it is even worse than we thought.
	The programme motion is unjustifiable, unnecessary, unbalanced and unwise. It will bring the Bill into disrepute. It is unjustifiable because the Home Secretary has boxed himself into a timetable. He and his ministerial colleagues said that the measure must be on the statute book by Christmas. No one else holds that view on the current Bill. I am sure that all hon. Members support measures to combat terrorism and we understand the urgency of enacting them. However, we await a decent explanation from the Under-Secretary or her more senior colleagues of why all the other material will be rushed through.
	The Bill is unjustifiable not only on that basis. There are 30 pages of amendments and new clauses. Even the edited version—the marshalled list—contains plenty of dense and interesting issues for discussion.

David Winnick: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman clarify that point?

Edward Garnier: I shall not bother with the hon. Gentleman.

David Winnick: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Edward Garnier: No. Sit down.
	The programme motion is unnecessary because, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) pointed out today and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said on Second Reading, a great deal of material in the Bill could be tackled later in a different measure.
	The motion is unwise because the Bill that we are supposed to be debating in a spirit of co-operation and urgency is embroiled in a controversy of the Government's making about the rushed way in which a measure that is important for its legal as well as constitutional implications will be placed on the statute book. There is no reason for the Government's behaviour and I deeply regret their actions.
	The motion is unbalanced because, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, the elected representatives of the public receive two days for debate in Committee and the House of Lords have six days to discuss the Bill. We had an interesting debate on Second Reading. It is regrettable that those who were unable to contribute to it will be confined to two days of consideration—today and next Monday. It is extraordinary that the Government believe that it is appropriate for the unelected House to spend more time than the House of Commons on the measure. That brings the legislation into disrepute.
	We in this Parliament, whether Opposition or Government Members, seek to pass legislation that has public consent. Not everyone will agree with it or acknowledge the good sense behind the policy, but those who are the subject of the law know that it has been through a process that they understand and with which they agree. This important Bill is to be rammed through the House at short order. When brought into effect, I fear that it will not have the wholehearted consent of the public who send us here to discuss these matters.
	In addition to the arguments made by my right hon. and hon. Friends, the hon. Member for North Cornwall and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), I have heard only one good thing today. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Home Secretary, made the point that we shall at least express our distaste for the measure in a Division. That is all we can do, which is regrettable. I wish that I could argue further on the timetable motion and the substance of the Bill, but this Government do not want to listen. Frankly, I do not think they care.

Tony McWalter: It is easy to lose sight of what these technical motions mean. On Monday, I sat on this Bench from 2.30 until the vote at 10 o'clock and each time I rose to catch the eye of the Chair I was unsuccessful. I remained in the House until business ended just after midnight. These motions deny a Member who is willing to take that much trouble to contribute the capacity to do so.
	I accept that the electors of Hemel Hempstead may have been wrong to send me here in the first place, but the effect of a greatly restrictive timetable is to produce a situation in which those who want to contribute and make considerable efforts to do so are denied that contribution.

George Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Tony McWalter: I shall not take interventions, as I have about a minute left.
	This Bench is a long way back from the Front Bench. Nevertheless, the concept behind the House is that Members who sit here as well as Members who sit there should be heard. The arrangements made for debate should give us the capacity to contribute, but I was not alone in being unable to take part. Many Members who contributed to the debate on this 114-page Bill were given only 10 minutes, so they had to focus and restrict their remarks considerably.
	I strongly agree with the representations made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Restricting the timetable for a large Bill is different from restricting the timetable for a small, tight Bill. Had I been given a chance, I would have said that, among other things. Effectively, this is a very restrictive timetable motion—a gagging order on people who have been sent here to speak. That is an important element of the debate.
	My next point relates to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), who was not here at midnight on Monday. With almost no time left, one of my colleagues was finally called, and my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) made an important speech about whether our system has the capacity to confine people who constitute a threat to our country.

George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that decisions as to who is called in a Second Reading debate are a matter not for the Government, but for the Chair?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is probably self-evident to the House.

Tony McWalter: The order makes it impossible for whoever is in the Chair to accommodate all who want to express their views. It means that matters that the House should discuss, such as the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar, can be given only very restricted consideration. I hope that the Government will take seriously the impassioned pleas of Labour as well as Opposition Members, and give us a little more time to try and secure a Bill that is appropriate to the purpose and addresses the current legal deficiencies, while ensuring that those who want a say in its fashioning have an opportunity to speak.

Andrew MacKay: I support all that was said by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter). I do so as one who broadly supports the Bill, voted for its Second Reading, and has only the same reservations as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)—reservations that he expressed very clearly on Second Reading.
	This has been a quiet week in the House. The business has been relatively unimportant. There was no reason why yesterday's Second Reading of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill could not have been delayed for a week. Tomorrow we are to debate Second Reading of the British Overseas Territories Bill, hardly the most exciting legislation of the current Session. The idea that such matters should have priority over proper consideration of this Bill is outrageous. As for Friday's business, we could surely have passed a motion enabling private Members' Bills to be taken on another Friday. No harm would have been done if the business had been delayed by a week or two.

Beverley Hughes: rose—

Andrew MacKay: I should be very happy to hear from the Minister why that has not happened.

Beverley Hughes: When the Conservative Government presided over the passage of the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act 1996—I understand that the right hon. Gentleman was a Whip then, possibly deputy Chief Whip—did he object to the timetable governing those proceedings? I gather that it involved a statement on one day, all stages in the House of Commons on the following day, and all stages in the House of Lords, along with Royal Assent, on the day after that.

Andrew MacKay: If the Minister had been in the House at that time she would know that the Bill was very short and very precise, and that both sides of the House agreed that it could proceed through its stages quickly. This is a long and very complex Bill.
	I would be quite happy for the Bill to go through in a week; I disagree with one or two other critics on that. I am saying that we should have had more time in which to debate it, because everyone would then have had the chance to express a view. This week's other business, which is at worst trivial and at best not very important, could have been delayed for a week. I hoped that the Minister would explain why the British Overseas Territories Bill is so important that its Second Reading must be debated tomorrow, rather than our having at least one extra day to debate this Bill in Committee. I now invite her to explain just why it is so important—but she shakes her head. [Interruption.] Let the Minister tell us just why the British Overseas Territories Bill is so important.

Douglas Hogg: Come on!

Andrew MacKay: If we had had Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday on which to debate this Bill in Committee and on Report, most of us who are critical of the timetable motion—the hon. Member for Stoke- on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) nods—would have withdrawn our criticism. Nothing would have been lost, and the Minister and the Home Secretary would have gained a little credit.

It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Order [28 June], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	The House divided: Ayes 334, Noes 213.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That, in accordance with the resolution of the Programming Committee of 20th November and pursuant to the Programme Order of 19th November (Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, on consideration and on Third Reading of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill)—
	(1) proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall, so far as not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at eleven o'clock on the second allotted day;
	(2) those proceedings shall be taken on each of the allotted days as shown in the second column of the following Table and shall be taken in the order so shown, and shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at the times specified in the third column of the Table.
	
		
			 Allotted day Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings  
			 First day New Clauses relating to the duration of the Act and reports to Parliament, Clause 123, Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 and 3, Schedule 2, Clauses 4 to 6, Schedule 3, Clauses 7 to 17, Schedule 4, Clauses 18 to 20 6.00 p.m.  
			  Clauses 21 to 35 8.30 p.m.  
			  Clauses 106 to 119 10.00 p.m.  
			 Second day Clauses 36 to 42 6.30 p.m.  
			  Clauses 43 to 58, Schedule 5, Clauses 59 to 70, Schedule 6, Clauses 71 to 87 8.00 p.m.  
			  Clauses 88 to 100, Schedule 7, Clauses 101 to 105, Clauses 120 and 121, Schedule 8, Clause 122, Clauses 124 and 125, Remaining New Clauses, New Schedules 11.00 p.m.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
	 — 
	[1st Allotted Day]

Considered in Committee

[Sir Alan Haselhurst in the Chair]

John Gummer: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I believe that you may, in another guise, have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) was inadvertently unfair to the Under–Secretary of State for the Home Department in asking her to explain why the Bill had not been given enough time in the House. He would have done better to ask the Leader of the House to give that answer but was unable to do so because the right hon. Gentleman, although in the House, was not in the Chamber. Is it possible for him to be in the Chamber so that this question may be asked of him?

Alan Haselhurst: As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, which Ministers are on the Bench to answer questions is not a matter for the Chair. I am sure that his point has been noted; a similar point was made somewhat earlier.

New Clause 6
	 — 
	Duration

(1) This Act, apart from Part 12, shall (subject to subsections (2) to (5)) cease to have effect at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which the Act receives Royal Assent.
	(2) The Secretary of State may, subject to subsections (3) to (5), by order provide—
	(a) that a provision of the Act which is in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall continue in force for a specified period not exceeding twelve months;
	(b) that a provision of this Act shall cease to have effect;
	(c) that a provision of this Act which is not in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall come into force and remain in force for a specified period not exceeding twelve months.
	(3) Parts 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14 of this Act shall, by virtue of this subsection, cease to have effect at the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
	(4) Parts 3, 5, 10, 11 and 13 of this Act shall, by virtue of this subsection, cease to have effect at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
	(5) Part 4 of this Act shall, by virtue of this subsection, cease to have effect at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.'.—[Mr. Letwin.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Oliver Letwin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 7—Report to Parliament No. 1—
	'(1) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament at least once in every 12 months a report on the working of Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 of this Act as they relate to terrorism.'.
	New clause 8—Report to Parliament No. 2—
	'(1) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament at least once in every 12 months a report on the working of the Parts of this Act which relate to terrorism.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 72, 42, 66 and 73 to 75, and clause 123 stand part.

Oliver Letwin: I am not privy to the discussions that may have gone on between the Government and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, but from listening to the interchange during the debate on the programme motion I sensed—perhaps mistakenly—that the Government might be offering to concede on the version of new clause 6 that has been proposed by the Home Affairs Committee. We shall undoubtedly discover whether that is the case as we proceed.
	I want specifically to point out the respects in which new clause 6, tabled jointly by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, differs from that which has been proposed by the Home Affairs Committee. The Committee's proposition is a huge advance on the position in the Bill. We would welcome a concession, but our view—for reasons that I shall explain—is that the Home Affairs Committee version is not tough enough to enable the House and the Government to inquire sufficiently, over succeeding years, into the effects and implications of the most controversial parts of the Bill.
	Ministers will already fully understand new clause 6, but I apologise to the Committee because the drafting is inelegant and it may be opaque on first reading. The intent, however, is simple. New clause 6 is best read from back to front. The underlying intent of new clause 6(5) does not differ greatly from that of the Home Secretary. It would provide that part 4—the most controversial part—would cease to have effect after a year. The Bill would give that provision a 15-month renewal clause, so although there is a significant difference between a complete lapse and a renewal and a minor difference between 15 months and a year, our underlying thoughts are similar to those of Ministers.
	New clause 6(4) would apply a two-year lapse period to the second most controversial class of parts of the Bill—parts 3, 5, 10, 11 and 13. Part 5, which covers incitement to religious hatred, might have been better included in new clause 6(5) and given only a year before it lapses, but we opted—in the spirit of attempting to reach eventual consensus with the Government—to give it and the other parts I mentioned two years before they lapse. New clause 6(3) relates to the remaining parts of the Bill except part 12. They are less controversial and we opted for a period equal to that suggested by the Home Affairs Committee—five years.
	Having moved from the end of the new clause towards the front, I beg the Committee to move from the front towards the middle. New clause 6(1) and (2) describe the flexibility that we wish to give the Home Secretary, within the constraints that I have just described—one-year, two-year and five-year lapses for parts of descending order of controversy—to renew parts or to let them lapse and bring them back. The only other effect of new clause 6(1) would be on part 12—the implementation of the OECD convention on bribery and corruption—which would be left intact with no lapse period, because it is a matter of cross-party agreement and I am reasonably confident that such minor amendment as we have proposed will eventually be the subject of agreement, if merited. It is a purely technical amendment.
	The sum result is that we wish the Committee to recognise—and if it does not, that the other place will do so—that the necessary constraints under which Ministers have laboured in producing a Bill at high speed and under which the House and the other place labour in scrutinising it at even higher speed, as we have already heard, should be matched by an exceptional rigour in forcing the Executive to bring back sections of the Act, as it will be, for fundamental renewal. The renewals would be more frequent the more controversial the provisions. I hope that we can reach consensus on that point. Many issues will be debated in the next few hours, next Monday and in the other place.
	We ought to be able to agree that it is as much in the interests of the Government as it is in the interests of Parliament and of the people that there should be the opportunity to discover whether the intent of the Bill—I have always admitted throughout these proceedings and in all public pronouncements that the Home Secretary's intent is noble and justified—is reflected in the outcomes it provides.

Edward Garnier: As always, my hon. Friend explains his case with exemplary clarity. May I ask him a question about new clause 6(2)(c)? It states:
	"The Secretary of State may, subject to subsections (3) to (5), by order provide . . . that a provision of this Act which is not in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall come into force and remain in force for a specified period not exceeding twelve months."
	I understand that a provision that the Secretary of State wishes to lapse should be dealt with by order. That broadly covers subsection (2)(b). I can also understand that the continuance of an existing provision should be made by order of the Secretary of State, but when a provision has lapsed—for one, two or three years—is my hon. Friend able to convince me that it should be revived by order rather than by some more fully debated system?

Oliver Letwin: I certainly do not know whether I shall be able to convince my hon. and learned Friend. If I can, it will be a good test of whether I am right. He is one of those Members whose legal knowledge and attention to these matters is of the greatest. Let me try to convince him.
	We believe that the constraints established by subsections (3), (4) and (5), which will force primary legislation de novo for part 4 within a year, for parts 3, 5, 10, 11 and 13 within two years and so forth, already create a sufficient lever for Parliament against the Executive. Subsection (3) would allow part 1, a relatively uncontroversial part of the Bill, to stand for five years. Under subsection (2)(c), to which my hon. and learned Friend refers, the Home Secretary would have the option to implement the provision, to let it lapse because it was no longer deemed necessary or to bring it back again within five years. Given that at the end of five years primary legislation would be required to re-enact the provision, it seemed to us reasonable that he should have that flexibility within the five-year period.
	I certainly do not regard that as a cardinal point. If my hon. and learned Friend were able to persuade me or the Committee that new clause 6 was appropriate, bar subsection (2)(c), I should not dream of going to the stake about it. However, the flexibility that we are providing is appropriate, given the strict rigour that we are applying to the Government's actions under the sunset clause.
	Furthermore, if the provision stretches the patience and tolerance of my hon. and learned Friend, that is a good indication of the lengths to which we have gone to try to ensure that we achieve consensus with the Government. We have tried to ensure that the new clause provides sufficient flexibility that reasonable Ministers, acting in their own self-interest as well as that of the House and of the country, could accept the new clause.
	Finally—I certainly do not want, in these proceedings or elsewhere, to go beyond the requirements of the subject matter—I merely observe that if Parliament passes large sections of the Bill intact, without a serious sunset clause, questions will be raised about the legitimacy of parliamentary proceedings in this country. It is perfectly right that the Home Secretary of the day, attending to a major national crisis, should introduce emergency legislation to deal with it. It is perfectly right that he should entertain the possibility of engaging in legislation of a kind that I suspect for him, and certainly for us, has a rather difficult feel to it. However, it cannot be right to do so at speed, and without the provision—right from the beginning—to enable Parliament to reconsider these controversial issues. The effect of not including such a sunset clause will be to cast into disrepute measures that are in principle acceptable and necessary. So I hope that the Home Secretary will, on mature reflection, support and welcome new clause 6, and I offer to describe it as "the Blunkett amendment" if that helps.

David Blunkett: In speaking to the Government amendments and suggesting that clause 123 stand part, I want first to respond to the remarks of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on the substantive issue—the sunset clause.
	I said on Monday that we were—in my view, rightly—prepared to listen and respond to proposals, made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and by other hon. Members, that would reassure the two Houses and were material to ensuring that the Bill would be in a good state when it gained Royal Assent. I meant what I said, and we will do so during the Bill's passage through Parliament. The speed with which it proceeds does not affect our willingness to be prepared to listen and respond.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs has suggested, having deliberated such issues in that Committee, that it would be appropriate to draft a clause that did not simply reinforce the return to the detention powers in clauses 21 to 23 annually, for which provision is already made in the Bill, so that Parliament can debate such issues under the affirmative procedure, but for longer than an hour and a half, as we said on Monday. He suggested that the content of those clauses should be put to the House afresh, so that it could show whether it was willing to reaffirm them.
	I am prepared to agree on behalf of the Government that, on Report, we shall move a Government amendment providing a sunset clause after five years. That would allow us to determine whether we as a Parliament felt that the detention provisions were justified and acceptable any longer.

Chris Mullin: I thank the Home Secretary for what he says. His willingness to listen to what the Select Committee and others have said will make it very much easier for those hon. Members who have some discomfort about the Bill to support it in the Lobby later on.

David Blunkett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that. I am genuinely prepared to continue to listen and to refute those who have the unfounded belief that we have malice aforethought in assuming that we can have questions and debates that are more like those of the court room than of Parliament.
	I only quote The Guardian to upset my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), but, on 13 November, Hugo Young asked:
	"how long will the emergency last? When will circumstances permit it to be lifted? If the minister is left to decide this alone, does anyone seriously expect this ever to happen?"
	The answer is yes—people do seriously expect it to happen, and it will happen not only in the annual reaffirmation but in the sunset clause.
	I am also prepared to respond to a further proposal, which appears on the amendment paper, from the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee in relation to the sensible suggestion that, as with the Terrorism Act 2000, we should allow the reviewer of the Terrorism Act to review the operation of the detention clauses in time to report before the first review by Parliament—that is, when they return to Parliament for reaffirmation.

David Winnick: I hope that, when the occasion arises, the Home Secretary will make another important concession, which I mentioned on Monday. As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I very much welcome what he says, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). Does it not destroy the argument used by some Opposition Members that the Government and Labour Back Benchers are indifferent to civil liberties—that we could not care less about them and that we simply vote without any concern for the civil liberties of people in the country, including those who are not nationals? The Home Secretary shows how deeply concerned we are, and I am very pleased that he has listened to the Committee's recommendation.

David Blunkett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Throughout my time in politics—a very long time—there have been many occasions, not least the terrible traumas in the Labour party in the 1980s, when abuse rather than persuasion was the order of the day. I have never relented in the face of abuse and I have always said that if people try to persuade they are more likely to receive a hearing. As long as I am in this job, I shall be prepared to listen to persuasion from Members on both sides. I am pleased that Lord Carlile accepted my invitation to undertake the duty of reviewing the clauses and of reporting back in time for the House to hold its deliberations.
	I do not intend to speak for long as there is very little time available, but I need to refer to new clauses 6, 7 and 8, which were tabled jointly by the two opposition parties. We really cannot accept sunset clauses that deal with issues that—by anyone's standard and irrespective of how long they have been debated—would be accepted by us all.
	Do we want to retain the power to remove unauthorised intruders from aircraft and airfields? Of course we do. Who wants to reject after two, four or five years the updating of the Aviation Security Act 1982? What is the point of tabling sunset clauses for issues on which we are all agreed? Do we seriously want a sunset clause to ensure that we can no longer protect civil nuclear sites in the way they will be secured and, as Members said on Monday, should have been secured a long time ago under previous legislation? Do we really oppose measures that retain on the statute book powers against the aiding and abetting of people transporting nuclear weapons?

Oliver Letwin: Does the Home Secretary accept that, although we certainly agree with the intent behind such provisions, there is a difference between agreeing with the intent and being sure now that the drafting will have the effect that he and I jointly desire?

David Blunkett: The limited but genuine exercise to try to engage everyone in the past few weeks and the genuine commitment to respond to sensible suggestions, including drafting suggestions made here or in the House of Lords, are designed to meet that point. For example, if we have got wrong the provisions to protect us against the ebola virus, we will be very happy to respond to suggestions about how we get them right. However, the idea that we shall run out of time and that, in the next few years, we shall change our view on how we should protect ourselves does not do the House justice. The proposals would allow opposition for its own sake and not for the sake of getting the measures right. I want to be brief, but that is why we oppose the new clauses.
	By all means let Members suggest changes that are appropriate to improving the legislation, but let us not for political or parliamentary procedural reasons suggest that sensible provisions that should have been sorted out a long time ago should be held up in years to come and brought back to the House. If they are, that will be at the expense of the other legislation for which Members on both sides will be pressing. They will ask why a Bill has been left out or why the Government have not managed to achieve what they wanted to do. They will ask why their constituents are demanding that we should have done this, that or the other—whether on the national health service or foxhunting—when we are bringing back large parts of a Bill that people agree with but wish to make a point about.

Alan Beith: Does the Home Secretary not understand the consequences of the argument that he is adducing? Precisely because, on every future occasion, there will be pressures for other legislation, Ministers will say that it appears, on reflection, that such legislation should be put through very quickly and perhaps not in the form that we would like. The many other competing claims might mean that we do not return to a certain Bill, and that might be one reason why we have had defective Official Secrets Acts for so long.

David Blunkett: That argument does not damage my point. The Leader of the House is endeavouring to allow sufficient time for us to debate the issues that hon. Members wish to address while using parliamentary procedures and timetables that bear some relation to what people outside expect. As I have said several times, I am in favour of timetabling every Bill because that benefits constituents. There is an interesting anomaly, and the shadow Home Secretary was good enough to mention the clause on bribery and corruption. We agreed to it because we and the Opposition parties wanted it and it was an international obligation.
	We should pause and reflect on the fact that the Bill may be long, but we have tried to get the wording right and to replicate the provisions for Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is on the intent of the Bill that we should be agreeing or disagreeing, not on whether bits of it, with the exception of one clause, should have to return to the House to be put through as a substantive parent measure just because people are irritated about the speed with which we are operating. It is on that basis that I ask the Committee to reject new clauses 6, 7 and 8.

Simon Hughes: I begin by agreeing with the Home Secretary's decision to accept the proposal by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, as contained in amendment No. 53, to give a sunset maximum life of five years to part 4, which contains the most controversial measure—detention without trial. Of course that is welcome.
	It is also welcome that the Home Secretary has said that there should be a reporting back procedure on those measures that relate to terrorism, which is in line with the recommendation of the Select Committee and new clauses 7 and 8. This is my first chance to say in public how glad we are that he has appointed our noble Friend Lord Carlile of Berriew, a former Member of this House, to be the new reviewer of terrorist legislation. That job was created by the Terrorism Act 2000 and will be extended to this legislation.
	Although those measures are welcome, there are others on which the Home Secretary needs persuading. I intend to do that by persuading him on their merits, the tactic that he says works best. He does not understand the nature of the case put by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The issue is one of principle. Parliament is being asked to have unusual timetables and exceptional measures of procedure, and the House of Commons is to spend a total of three days on a Bill. The timetable has not been agreed with the parties. With the exception of the clause on bribery and corruption, which the Government asked the Opposition parties to accept, the proposals have not been agreed in detail; yet they are trying to use emergency procedures, as evidenced by Monday's vote on a guillotine motion that gave us today and next Monday to debate the Bill's substance. In such a case, legislation should always come back to Parliament. It is not a case of whether it is controversial. The principle is that Parliament must hold the Government to account.

David Blunkett: Why then does the hon. Gentleman not accord that principle to the clause that was agreed? We agreed to many clauses in our discussions, although they did form part of a bigger Bill. If I introduced them one by one and suggested that they were, as they are, emergency provisions, and if the parties agreed to them, would they add up to the same clause on bribery and corruption as he is prepared to accept?

Simon Hughes: Not only is the answer no, but that is an unfair and unreasonable comment. The Home Secretary cannot have it both ways. His Minister came, no doubt with his blessing, specifically to obtain the agreement of the other parties to the inclusion of that particular proposal on bribery and corruption. No other proposal came to us. We were not consulted on whether other parts should be included. I expressly agreed with the Minister that the measure would be the only ring-fenced provision. I accepted that it could go through without the usual requirement for it to return to the House, because it was part of the policy supported by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. The Home Secretary must not pretend otherwise. He is wrong to do so, and he is misleading the House if he is suggesting that anything else happened. I am going to be tough with him because this is completely unreasonable.

David Blunkett: If you accuse me of misleading the House, I have the right to make the clear point that over the past three weeks we did not bring clauses singly to the parties—except for the bribery and corruption clause, which was drafted after the substantive clauses had been presented to the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrat party in substantial form. You might not like the form in which they were presented, but they were presented. I object strongly to the suggestion that I misled the House—

The Chairman: Order. I have not suggested anything about the Secretary of State. I let the matter go because the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) spoke in the conditional tense. I do not think that he was aiming a direct slur at the Home Secretary.

Simon Hughes: I was careful to do that, as the Home Secretary will realise if he refers to the transcript of the debate.
	We have not agreed to the detail of the rest of the Bill; therefore it must come back to Parliament if we are to have an emergency procedure. That applies generally and in particular to the more controversial provisions, especially the powers of the state. The Government have introduced the Bill to give the state more power. In that respect, it is important that Parliament should have the opportunity to scrutinise the legislation. We propose that there should be a five-year period for the uncontroversial matters to return to us, a two-year period for the relatively controversial matters of police powers and European legislation, and a one-year period for detention without trial, which is four years earlier than the Select Committee wanted. That is a considered proposal to ensure that everything that has not been agreed returns.

John Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when there is such full-hearted agreement in the immediate aftermath of a disaster or terrorist outrage, experience teaches us that that is when we may well make mistakes? When the Home Secretary suggests that everyone agrees to this legislation so there is no need to return to it, the experience of everything from the Dangerous Dogs Bill to any other emergency legislation teaches us that when we all agree we soon find out that we should have disagreed.

Simon Hughes: The right hon. Member is a former Minister and former chairman of his party and he is absolutely right. The Bill is a mixture of general agreement on matters that are not fundamentally important to our constitution, and huge disagreement on some matters that are very important. I pray in aid the fact that the Select Committee noted at paragraph 10 of its report:
	"Since 1974, at least eight Acts have been passed by Parliament, dealing with terrorism. Those in 1974, 1996 and 1998 were passed by the House with great speed. The other five were taken at the normal pace . . . The three Bills which passed quickly were relatively short—between seven and 13 clauses or 12 to 14 pages—and passed all stages on a single day at sittings of up to 17 hours . . . It is proposed"
	—these are the Select Committee's words, not mine—
	"that this Bill (which is ten times longer) should be considered at three sittings—one day for second reading and two days for Committee".
	The Committee concludes:
	"We question whether it is appropriate for this Bill to be passed through the House of Commons in exactly two weeks with only three days of debate on the floor of the House. A Bill of this length . . . with major implications for civil liberties should not be passed by the House in such a short period and with so little time for detailed examination in committee."
	Those are the words of an all-party Committee, considering the Bill and forming a clear view.
	I shall quote just two sentences from paragraph 79 of the second report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2001–02:
	"Careful consideration is not, however, aided by the decision to push a Bill of this size and complexity through Parliament at such breakneck speed. Too many ill-conceived measures litter the statute book as a result of such rushed legislation in the past."

Matthew Taylor: rose—

Edward Garnier: rose—

Simon Hughes: I give way to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier).

Edward Garnier: Is not the very good point that the hon. Gentleman is making reinforced by the selection list? In the first allotted day, before 6 o'clock, there are 15 underlined subheadings to be dealt with, many of them subdivided. The Home Secretary very fairly said that he was prepared to listen, but if we do not have time to talk to him, he will find it quite difficult to listen.

Paul Boateng: You are taking up time now.

Simon Hughes: Ministers cannot say that we are taking up time now. Members of Parliament are sent to this place to debate issues; I am sorry about that. We are sent to Parliament to ask Government questions. We are sent to Parliament to question whether the Government have got things right. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough is absolutely right, as are my hon. Friends, to point out that it is impossible to do so if there is no time allocated to do it.
	It is a constitutional matter. We—ordinary people, the people whom the Home Secretary commends: the trade union movement, women, students—have fought over the years for Parliament, not the Executive, to be supreme: for Parliament to have the chance to decide, not the Executive. The Home Secretary must understand, and I am sure that he does if he is straightforward with the House on this matter, that Parliament must be here to hold each and every Government to account, including his; and on matters emanating from the Home Office, to do with the powers of the state and liberty, Parliament must do its duty above all, for us, and for future generations as much as anyone else.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Simon Hughes: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor).

Matthew Taylor: I want to catch my hon. Friend before he goes too much further. A moment ago, the Home Secretary intervened to argue that the bribery and corruption clauses had been presented to the Opposition parties because they were drafted subsequent to the main items of the Bill. I was grateful that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took the time to discuss that issue with me, because it was something that I had pressed on him, and we welcome the introduction of those clauses. However, my understanding was that the discussion took place on the basis that there was some question as to whether they were appropriate for inclusion in the Bill, because although they might have indirect links with terrorism they were not directly linked with it, and whether we would support them in view of that issue, not because they were drafted late.

Simon Hughes: That is exactly the point, and that was the subject of the debate. The debate was about whether—without prejudice to the question of whether there was a terrorism link—because there was perceived by Government to be a relevance, and it was a reasonable case that there might be, and because everyone else had said that they supported these proposals, and they were part of an international obligation, we would accept the Bill as a home for them. Without prejudice to the rest of the Bill, we said yes to that.
	The whole debate about the Bill, however, and about the justification for it—I hope that we shall have that debate shortly—is about whether the Bill should be a general Bill about terrorism, crime, security and other things, or whether it should be a terrorism-related Bill only. Those of us on the Opposition Benches who are trying to do our constitutional job are saying that if the Government want Parliament to pass a Bill quickly to deal with an emergency, it must be limited to matters that are to deal with that emergency.

Paul Tyler: rose—

Douglas Hogg: rose—

The Chairman: Order—I now wish to intervene. The hon. Gentleman is straying wide of the duration clause. I know that there are various interconnected issues but we must, for the sake of good order, keep within the confines of the new clause.

Simon Hughes: Of course, Sir Alan. I wish to take two interventions. Let me deal with the last substantive points before I let my colleagues intervene and then allow others to speak.
	The reason Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Front-Bench team have sought to work together on the new clause and others is to try to achieve the maximum agreement to save time as far as possible, so as to create a basis for reasonable agreement in both Houses. That is why, conscious of the timetable, we have separated out the most controversial aspect of the measure and given it a specific one-year duration proposal—we believe that detention without trial should not be authorised by rushed legislation, given all the controversial issues that were raised on Monday night, without its returning properly to the House after being considered in the other place—and why we have suggested, in relation to a limited number of proposals, that some of them, but only some of them, should have a two-year life.
	I remind the House of what those proposals are. They are: the parts of the Bill dealing with exchange of information among Government Departments—controversial; the part of the Bill dealing with race and religion—extremely controversial, if it were to reach the statute book; the part of the Bill dealing with police powers and their extension—extremely controversial; the part of the Bill dealing with communication data and the control by authorities of data—also controversial; and lastly, and not accidentally, the power that the Bill gives Ministers to introduce, by secondary legislation and by order, legislation that has only ever seen scrutiny by Ministers in Brussels and has not even been to the European Parliament. It is not unreasonable to argue that that sort of legislation, when we do not have time to scrutinise it and we may not in the House have time to debate much of it either, should have to return to this place, definitely, certainly and not conditionally on the whim of the Home Secretary.

Paul Tyler: I am grateful that my hon. Friend continued his speech somewhat before taking my intervention, because it makes my point even more formidable. I suggest to my hon. Friend that the Home Secretary is taking a huge risk by resisting these sensibly, carefully crafted amendments, because by resisting them in the House, where the Government have a majority, he is simply inviting the other House to spend more time examining these issues and perhaps reaching a more rational and carefully crafted conclusion than we are able to in the House. He is taking that absurd risk by pushing the Bill through without these central amendments, because he will come a cropper at the other end of the building.

Simon Hughes: I not only accept that, but I hope that the Home Secretary accepts that if he does not want his Bill bouncing around between both Houses of Parliament in the days leading up to Christmas—

David Blunkett: That is a threat.

Simon Hughes: No, it is not a threat. It is a constitutional process, not a threat. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it has happened in every Parliament he and I have been in this place. The House of Lords has a job to do. When it overturns the Government or amendments are made, the legislation returns to this place, and the more the Government resist in this place, the more will have to be overturned in the other place, and the more it will have to come back to this place. I am seeking to do what the Home Secretary said he wanted to do, which was to make proposals with widespread support, which will be supported in this and the other place.

Douglas Hogg: Might I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that his arguments are further reinforced by this consideration? We are now debating a group of new clauses and amendments, and the debate must end by 6 o'clock. There are actually 20 clauses in the schedule on which discussion must end by 6 o'clock. Some of them relate to the Treasury's powers to freeze money or to seize what is described as terrorist cash. The truth is that we shall never reach any of those clauses because we must terminate this part of the debate by 6 o'clock. Very important things—

The Chairman: Order. I must say to the—

Douglas Hogg: I am so sorry.

The Chairman: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must accept that that is taking us outside the scope of the new clause before us. He is trying to make a more general point than is permissible in the debate that we are having.

Douglas Hogg: What I am seeking to do, if I may just explain—

The Chairman: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot, on an intervention, argue with the Chair. Mr. Simon Hughes.

Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I was not seeking to argue with the Chair. What I was merely trying to do—and I am not seeking to argue with the Chair—was to reinforce the case for the sunset clauses, on the basis that we would not be able to discuss many things because of the timetable.

The Chairman: What I heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman say seemed to me to fall outside the terms of the new clause to which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is addressing his remarks. For the sake of time, we have to concentrate very determinedly on the terms of the new clause.

Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary asked a rhetorical question about how long the emergency will last. None of us knows that. Liberal Democrat Members have accepted that there is a case for special legislation, but we do not know for how long it will be necessary. That is why the new clause provides for flexibility. It will allow the Government to terminate elements of the legislation or even re-enact certain elements within five years, if that is required. However, Parliament has a duty to say to the Government that we will not allow emergency powers or legislation that we have not considered to continue indefinitely. We are the Parliament of the United Kingdom. There are separate issues for Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. If ever there were a test of whether the constitution will be upheld, it is whether Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise legislation.
	The sadness for some Opposition Members is that those are exactly the arguments that the Labour party, in opposition, used to deploy against the Government of the day. It is sad to record that the longer it remains in office, the more new Labour forgets that it has to be properly accountable to Parliament—and Parliament to the people—rather than arrogating more and more power to the Executive. The Government need lessons because they are ignoring what they used to say in opposition and what the country expects from a democratically accountable Government. This is a usurpation of power too far.

Diane Abbott: In speaking to the new clauses on duration, the Home Secretary said that the important thing is that we all agree on the Bill's intent, implying that we should not get too hung up on procedure or detail. With the greatest respect to him, I beg to differ. We are passing a law on which will turn the liberty of the subject, so despite the fact that many of those interned under the legislation will be people whom most hon. Members find unsavoury, and who have no popularity with the wider public, it is important not only that we agree on the Bill's intent but that we be satisfied that the letter of the Bill is robust and will achieve the desired effect.
	In the debate on the programme motion, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), said that we needed to suspend our normal expectations because of the emergency situation. I am not sure what she meant by that, but no emergency justifies the suspension of our normal expectation that the House should pass legislation that is robust, defensible and fair.
	I congratulate the Home Affairs Committee on its excellent report, and in particular its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), on his hard work on winning from the Home Secretary the concession of a five-year sunset clause. Of course it is an improvement on the status quo, but I ask my hon. Friend to cast his mind back to the last Parliament, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was Home Secretary. He was a past master at the art of the carefully calibrated concession—just enough to get people voting with the Government but not enough to alter the substance of the legislation. I hope that in this Parliament we will not get caught up with such concessions because, a few years on, no one can remember what the concessions were but we know that we are lumbered with thoroughly bad legislation. The Chairman of the Select Committee is to be congratulated on his body fight for the concession—

Chris Mullin: The Select Committee considered the proposals in detail and concluded that it agreed with the Government that there is a small category of people who cannot be deported or extradited and who constitute a danger to the state. The Committee is not disputing the Home Secretary's reason for bringing the core part of the Bill to Parliament. We wanted a sunset clause because we hope that in five years the emergency will be over.

Diane Abbott: I do not think that anybody in the House disputes the Bill's intent; it is the letter of the Bill that we are attempting to debate under the onerous restrictions of the programme motion.
	I give the House a general warning to beware, as we scrutinise the Bill, of the carefully calibrated concession and always to return to the substance of the Bill and ask whether it is acceptable. The new clauses that would introduce more detailed sunset provisions would be preferable even to my hon. Friend's hard-won concession, but as we go through the Bill, we will find many substantive points to which many of us wish to speak.

David Cameron: I sit on the Home Affairs Committee with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), and I thank the Home Secretary and his colleagues for giving way on an amendment in our names.
	I have listened to the debate and to the point made by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) about the carefully calibrated concession. When the Select Committee suggested a sunset clause on part 4, the most difficult part of the Bill, we also said that we profoundly believed, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, that it was not appropriate to give the Bill's passage so little time and we called on the Home Secretary to do some major surgery to the Bill.
	We know from what we have heard that the House will get no more time to examine the Bill, and having listened to the debate on Second Reading, some of us are doubtful that we will get major surgery. The Select Committee asked for most of part 5 and all of part 13 to be cut out of the Bill. Do Ministers still have an open mind on those other points? New clause 6 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is, I admit, complicated, but it does at least deal with the problem that the Bill is simply too long.
	A sunset clause alone is not enough. A more general sunset clause along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, which would not apply to the bribery clauses in part 12, would allow the Government to re-enact parts of the Bill for 12 months. It would include a fallback position of a full sunset clause: five years for the least controversial aspects; two years for quite controversial matters, and one year for part 4. If the Government accepted that, it would give them the defence that they will need when the Bill goes to another place, where Members will know, because it is simply too long, that we have not had time to scrutinise it properly. I hope that Ministers will address that point.

Mark Fisher: Like others who have spoken, I greatly welcome the Home Secretary's acceptance of the Home Affairs Committee's recommendation of a sunset clause for part 4. I especially welcome what he said about extending the remit of Lord Carlile, which would give many people considerable confidence.
	The debate about sunset clauses has focused on the principle, intent and duration of the Bill, but there is a separate problem that new clause 6 might address, albeit slightly inadvertently: implementation. We need to retain not only the power to bring the measure to an end after a five-year term, desirable though that is, but the ability to consider and express a view on how it is being implemented.

Oliver Letwin: That effect is not inadvertent; it was central to the view that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and I took when we tabled the new clause.

Mark Fisher: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments, which I accept.
	I should like to return to an issue that I raised in the debate on the programme motion, and mention what happened when we introduced internment in 1939 and 1940. On 4 September 1939, the then Home Secretary, Sir John Anderson, of Shelter fame, gave in answer to a question from Mr. Arthur Greenwood an admirable reply about how aliens would be treated under internment. He said that there would be
	"no unnecessary interference with other foreigners".—[Official Report, 4 September 1939; Vol. 351, c. 366.]
	I am sure that that was his intention and that he wanted the measure to be liberally interpreted and carefully considered and constrained, but as quickly as the following July, different results were shown by a statistical survey that was conducted in an internment camp containing 1,500 people. It dealt with the circumstances of all of those people and was conducted to see how internment was operating.

David Blunkett: I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend. All that he has said is entirely true. Policies were undertaken here and in other democratic countries during the second world war that caused great regret. However, first, there is, surely, no comparison; and secondly, no one envisaged in 1939 or 1949 the special immigration advisory committee procedure, which I spelled out in great detail on Monday and which we will, of course, implement to the letter.

Mark Fisher: I accept what my right hon. Friend says. There is no intention that the measure should be applied on a wider basis than is appropriate. In 1939, however, the then Home Secretary initially thought that he was giving himself powers to intern about 2,000 people, but within nine months, 20,000 of the 30,000 Austrian and German male residents in this country had been interned because of the pressure of events. I suspect that that is not what Sir John Anderson intended, but it is what happened. The speed of events and the implementation of the measures by those with that responsibility—in this case, the chief constables—meant that although the sweep was originally targeted at enemy aliens, it was much wider in practice. Nazi sympathisers and opponents, Jews and Aryans, and a whole range of people who were not originally intended to be caught by the measures were affected. [Interruption.] I must say, Sir Michael, that it is terribly difficult to address the Committee when the junior Minister is talking on the Front Bench. As I was saying, the intention was one thing, but the effect was another. There were no additional powers, but the impetus of events meant that the circumstances were very different as soon as nine months later.
	I am sure that my right hon. Friend Home Secretary intends the Bill to cover a very small number of people, as he told the House the other day. However, we must have the right to ensure that we can consider how it is proceeding in one or two years' time. At the very least, we must have a chance to debate, comment and, if necessary, vote on Lord Carlile's report every year, so that we can ensure that circumstances do not drive the intentions of legislation that is passed this year in a very different direction.

Douglas Hogg: I rise briefly to express my support for the thought behind the sunset clause approach, largely because of the procedure that we are going to adopt. The new clause at least enables all the parts of the Bill to which it refers to fall away within specified times. That inevitably means that this House will have to consider those provisions further if the Government of the day want to give statutory force to them.
	The plain truth is that, because of time constraints, we are not going to discuss the substance of any of the clauses in the group whose consideration terminates at 6 o'clock. We have reached only the first line in the marshalled list. At least new clause 6 would apply a sunset provision to all the other measures that feature in the marshalled list, but which will not be discussed at all. Some of them, such as the power of the Treasury to freeze people's cash, the power of Customs to go to the magistrates to get a seizure order in respect of "terrorist cash" and the extension of disclosure obligations are of great importance.
	I shall not seek to debate the merits of those issues as you, Sir Michael, would call me to order if I did so. I point out only that, from any viewpoint, they are extremely important obligations and powers that are backed by penal sanctions. Furthermore, they apply to people's property and may also affect the property of innocent third parties. However, we are not going to discuss them at all. That is one of the arguments in favour of sunset clauses, which are a very imperfect way of dealing with the problem that we face. We should not be in this position, but as we are, we must do something to provide a remedy. A sunset clause is one way of at least expressing our dismay about the position.

John Burnett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned penal sanctions. Does he agree that there is a compelling debate to be had about whether more senior judges should deal with those matters, rather than more junior judges and magistrates, as the Bill proposes?

Douglas Hogg: I am sure that that is correct, although I am being a bit careful because I do not want to stray into the merits of clauses that are not currently before the Committee. None the less, the hon. Gentleman's point is valid, as the sunset clause gives us the opportunity, at least in theory, to address matters that the House will not address at all. Its failure to do so cannot be right.

Simon Hughes: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that, as the professor of human rights law at King's college pointed out in his evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, since the mid-1970s, regular review has been a feature not only of parts of anti-terrorism legislation, but of that legislation as a whole? That is the case not least so that Parliament and Government have to keep thinking about whether the legislation is justified and so that the public continually have it in the front of their minds.

Douglas Hogg: I was not aware of that specific evidence, but I am sure that the professor is entirely right. Sunset clauses at least focus the attention of the Executive and Parliament on whether the existing situation at a given time is serious enough to justify a derogation from civil rights. That is important, but in this case it is much more urgent: some 12 minutes of debate remain, in which we must consider 20 clauses—and we have not discussed one of them.

George Howarth: I welcome the agreement that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has given in his response to the suggestion of the Select Committee on Home Affairs regarding sunset clauses. It is entirely appropriate that a five-year limit has been set. In normal circumstances, the House is rightly very suspicious of measures such as that which is before the Committee, but they should not necessarily be ruled out in all circumstances. Clearly, we are currently in a situation that nobody sought and nobody wants. We all wish that this had not happened, but the fact is that there are significant threats not only to this country and the security of its people, but to our way of life.
	I want to take up a couple of points, but I do not want to detain the Committee long. In his two speeches this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) made great play of comparisons with legislation passed during the second world war. I shall reinforce the point made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in an intervention—the two sets of circumstances are not comparable. In the second world war, we were dealing with a defined enemy and a known set of circumstances and massive intelligence was not required to know where people were or what support they had, although espionage was certainly going on in this country. We are now dealing with a terrorist organisation with tentacles all over the place. It can use sophisticated technologies that simply did not exist during the second world war. In those circumstances, it is crucial that we protect ourselves against that threat.

Mark Fisher: The Home Secretary said that his difficulty is that he can identify the people who put this country at risk, but cannot take action against them. We are not dealing with the problem of an unknown and undefinable enemy in the community; the Home Secretary, or the security forces, can identify the people who are likely to cause terrorist outrages in this country, but cannot act against them.

George Howarth: My hon. Friend would be right if the intelligence available to the Home Secretary and Ministers was a single static body of knowledge. I am sure that the Committee agrees that intelligence gathering is a dynamic process. As time goes on, other people, although relatively small in number, may well be identified who will fall under the provisions proposed by my right hon. Friend. I hope that that will be the case. I suspect that, in such circumstances, he will want to use the power that is available to him. So, in direct response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and others, in times like these they must accept that an element of trust is involved.

Oliver Letwin: No one is denying for half a second that an element of trust is involved. We are entrusting to the Government the power, with relatively little parliamentary scrutiny, to implement measures of great concern. The question is whether that trust should prevail for years or whether we should have the opportunity to review the issue of whether our initial trust was well placed.

George Howarth: I accept that entirely. If the hon. Gentleman had not intervened to make that point, I was going to go into that territory.
	If the House and, by extension, those whom we represent are to give that trust, it follows that the House should have regard to the period for which the legislation should sensibly last and at what time a sunset clause should come into effect. I have given that trust to Labour Ministers and would happily give it to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) if he were in government. I do not think that that is an immediate prospect but, nevertheless, I would do so. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has listened and he has earned our trust. He decided that suggestions by the Select Committee on Home Affairs were sensible and signalled that he wished to take them on board.

Norman Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that we would all be more willing to trust the Home Secretary completely if the Bill was narrowly focused, concentrated on anti-terrorist measures and not packed full of stuff that has been lying in a Home Office cupboard for months?

George Howarth: If I strayed from the immediate point, you would pull me up, Sir Michael. However, the argument that the Bill has somehow managed to attract unconnected clauses for the Government's convenience is, frankly, a naive reading of the situation. The truth is that the Bill's provisions are connected. Having spent two years as a junior Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, I am well aware of the connections between all the clauses; there is an overarching theme, and the Bill is not just a loose connection of good ideas that somebody has decided to throw together. The point made by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) does not stand up.

Lynne Jones: rose—

Oliver Letwin: rose—

George Howarth: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) first and then the hon. Member for West Dorset, but after that I really must try to conclude my remarks.

Lynne Jones: My hon. Friend said that the Government listened to the Home Affairs Select Committee, but that is not completely true. The Home Secretary accepted its recommendation on the five-year sunset clause, but not its concerns about the time needed to debate the Bill in the House. He did not accept those reservations when they were made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, either. Surely, the two things go hand in hand.

George Howarth: I am in some difficulty, as I do not know whether the Front Bench wants time to respond before 6 o'clock. I am sure that somebody will signal if that is the case.
	I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who said that he was persuaded by the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee on the sunset clause. He went on to say that there were other areas on which he was prepared to continue listening to advice. I am prepared to give him more than the benefit of the doubt, as he has already demonstrated his willingness to listen.
	I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for West Dorset—[Interruption.] He has declined the opportunity.

Annabelle Ewing: In the light of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) not taking up that offer, I thought that I would quickly get in. I have listened to the debate with interest, and must ask a fundamental question. In what way is the Government's position, especially on part 4, fundamentally impinged if they have to return to the House to renew their legislation?

George Howarth: If the hon. Lady had been listening to my speech, she would be aware that I made the point that, in the circumstances, the Government must return to the House to renew the legislation. The only contentious thing is with what frequency they should do that.

Andrew Hunter: A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman argued that the entire Bill was, in a core sense, central to anti-terrorism. If that is the case, why does he not argue, as he did all the years that he was in opposition, that the whole Bill should be subjected to annual review?

George Howarth: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary clearly explained that that is exactly his intention. I do not fully understand the hon. Gentleman's position.

Oliver Letwin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman sought to intervene earlier; I tried to give way to him, but he withdrew his request. There are two minutes left, and I have been generous in giving way throughout my speech. I shall now try to bring my remarks to close.
	My right hon. Friend made it clear that he has listened to concerns that have been put to him and has acted on some of them. He also made it clear that he will listen to further reasonable concerns; I accept in good faith that that is his intention. In those circumstances, I hope that Conservative Members will withdraw new clause 6, and I hope that Liberal Democrat Members will not press their two new clauses to a vote.

Oliver Letwin: For the avoidance of doubt, we shall not withdraw the new clause. The position is not as represented inadvertently by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). The Home Secretary's concession means that one part of the Bill will lapse after five years and, in the interim, will be subject to annual review. The remainder of the Bill, in its entirety, will not be subject to review and will last for ever. Conservative Members cannot accept that position.
	It being Six o'clock, The Chairman, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the clause be read a second time:—
	The Committee divided: Ayes 216, Noes 351.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 123
	 — 
	Commencement

Amendments made: No. 72, in page 72, line 34, leave out "and (3)" and insert "to (3A)".
	No. 42, in page 72, line 39, leave out paragraph (b).
	No. 66, in page 73, line 2, leave out from "to" to end of line 3 and insert "96;".
	No. 73, in page 73, line 3, at end insert—
	'( ) sections 97 to 99, except so far as they extend to Scotland,
	( ) section 100 and Schedule 7, except so far as they relate to the entries in respect of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967,'.
	No. 74, in page 73, line 10, at end insert—
	'(iia) in Part 6 of Schedule 8, in respect of the British Transport Commission Act 1962 and the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987, so far as those entries extend to Scotland,'.
	No. 75, in page 73, line 16, after subsection (3) insert—
	'(3A) The following provisions come into force on such day as the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers, acting jointly, may appoint by order—
	(a) sections 97 to 99, so far as they extend to Scotland,
	(b) section 100 and Schedule 7, so far as they relate to the entries in respect of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, and
	(c) section 121 and Schedule 8, so far as they relate to the entries in Part 6 of Schedule 8 in respect of the British Transport Commission Act 1962 and the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987, so far as those entries extend to Scotland.'.—[Beverley Hughes.]
	Clause 123, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 1
	 — 
	Forfeiture of Terrorist Cash

Michael Lord: With clause 1, we are also considering whether schedule 1—Forfeiture of Terrorist Cash—should be the First schedule to the Bill.

Motion made, and Question put:—
	The Committee divided: Ayes 362, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Amendments Relating to Section 1

Amendments made: No. 60, in page 2, line 14, leave out " or 9" and insert "9 or 10".
	No. 61, in page 2, line 32, leave out "and 9" and insert "9 and 10".—[Beverley Hughes.]
	Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2
	 — 
	Terrorist Property: Amendments

Amendments made: No. 46, in page 87, leave out line 28 and insert—
	'(5) For paragraph 19(3) substitute—
	"(3) A restraint order made under paragraph 18(1) shall in particular be recalled on an application under sub-paragraph (2) if the proceedings for the offence have been concluded.
	(3A) A restraint order made under paragraph 18(2) shall in particular be discharged on an application under sub-paragraph (2)—
	(a) if no proceedings in respect of offences under any of sections 15 to 18 are instituted within such time as the Court of Session considers reasonable, and
	(b) if all proceedings in respect of offences under any of sections 15 to 18 have been concluded.".'.
	No. 47, in page 87, line 28, at end insert—
	'(6) In paragraph 23(1) for "19(3)(a)" substitute "19(3A)(a)".'.
	No. 62, in page 92, line 43, at end insert—
	'(ca) the acceptance of deposits from the public within the limit set by section 7(3) of that Act by such a society;'.—[Beverley Hughes.]
	Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 4 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule 3 agreed to.
	Clauses 7 to 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule 4 agreed to.
	Clauses 18 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21
	 — 
	Suspected international terrorist: certification

David Blunkett: I beg to move amendment No. 69, in page 10, line 35, after "State", insert "reasonably".

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 96, in page 10, line 36, leave out "believes" and insert—
	'has substantial grounds to believe'.
	Amendment No. 97, in page 10, line 38, leave out "suspects" and insert—
	'has substantial grounds to suspect'.
	Amendment No. 110, in page 10, line 42, leave out from "group" to end of line 2 on page 11.
	Amendment No. 98, in page 11, leave out lines 12 and 13.
	Amendment No. 99, in clause 22, page 12, line 9, at end insert—
	'(k) giving directions for a person's physical removal (to a country of which he is a national or citizen or to which there is reason to believe he will be admitted) pursuant to section 5(5) and paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to that Act.'.
	Clauses 22 to 24 stand part.
	Government amendment No. 70.
	Amendment No. 100, in clause 25, page 13, line 5, leave out "does not agree with" and insert—
	'is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for'.
	Clause 25 stand part.
	Amendment No. 111, in clause 26, page 13, line 18, leave out from "25" to end of line 19 and insert "within three months".
	Amendment No. 112, in page 13, line 21, leave out from "brought" to "months" in line 22 and insert "within three".
	Amendment No. 113, in page 13, line 24, leave out from "21" to "month" in line 25 and insert "within three".
	Government amendment No. 71.
	Clause 26 stand part.
	Amendment No. 114, in clause 27, page 14, line 37, leave out from "certificate" to end of line 38 and insert—
	'(a) on grounds of change of circumstances, or
	(b) where the initial certificate was cancelled because of a technical irregularity.'.
	Clause 27 stand part.
	Amendment No. 53, in clause 28, page 15, line 10, at end insert—
	'but no order shall be made under this subsection after the expiry of the period of five years beginning with the date on which this Act was passed'.
	Amendment No. 48, in page 15, line 10, at end insert—
	'.( ) The power to revive or continue sections 21 to 23 by way of an order under subsection (2), may only be used once.'.
	Clause 28 stand part.
	Amendment No. 101, in clause 29, page 15, line 38, at end insert—
	'save to review compliance with any rules made under section 5 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997'.
	Amendment No. 115, in page 15, leave out lines 39 to 41.
	Amendment No. 118, in page 15, leave out lines 42 and 43.
	Clause 29 stand part.
	Amendment No. 49, in clause 30, page 16, line 9, leave out subsection (2).
	Amendment No. 117, in page 16, leave out lines 13 to 15.
	Amendment No. 50, in page 16, line 15, leave out from "question" to end of line 17.
	Clauses 30 to 32 stand part.
	New clause 2—Annual review—
	'28A.—(1) The appropriate Minister shall appoint an independent Commissioner for the purpose of this section.
	(2) The Commissioner must review the operation of sections 21 to 23 before the end of the period—
	(a) of 15 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;
	(b) specified by an order made under section 28(2)(b) and (c), beginning with the date on which that order first came into force; and
	(c) specified by an order made under section 28(4), but only if it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(3) The Commissioner conducting a review under this section must prepare a report on the result of the review and lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament.
	(4) In this section "the Commissioner" means the Commissioner appointed under subsection (1).'.

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Sir Michael. I was listening very carefully and waiting for clause 17 to be called. We are minded to vote against it standing part of the Bill, but it was not called either on its own or with other clauses.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I read out very clearly the measures on which the Committee must vote, and the clause was included. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has missed his chance. We must now proceed to debate the proposals grouped with Government amendment No. 69.

Simon Hughes: Further to my point of order, Sir Michael. I do not wish to detain the Committee, but may I take you through what you said? Apparently, we were dealing with clauses 4 to 6, schedule 3, clauses 7 to 16 and schedule 4. My colleagues and I were listening carefully, and I understand that clause 17 was not included, although a schedule relating to it was included.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Let me repeat everything that I read out. I read out a proposal that clauses 4 to 6, schedule 3, clauses 7 to 17—[Hon. Members: "No; 16"]—schedule 4 and clauses 18 to 20 stand part of the Bill. That is what I read out. That is what I put to the Committee, and the Committee agreed to it. We must now move on.

Simon Hughes: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: No.

Simon Hughes: What if I asked you to take advice, Sir Michael?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I do not need to take advice. I am sure that what I read out—[Interruption.] Order. I am quite clear about this, and there is no point in pursuing it further. I put clause 17 to the Committee, among other provisions, and the Committee agreed to it. We must now move on to the debate on amendment No. 69 and the proposals taken with it.

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Sir Michael.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I hope it is a separate point of order, because I have dealt fully with the earlier one, and we need to move on.

Simon Hughes: It is a separate point of order, Sir Michael.

Tam Dalyell: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I am on my feet, and I cannot deal with two points of order at once.

Simon Hughes: May I ask you, Sir Michael, to consider either putting the last Question again or putting the Question relating to clause 17 separately, to allow the Committee—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have explained the position to the hon. Gentleman, who is merely repeating what he said earlier. I am clear about what I put to the Committee: I have it before me. The Committee has agreed to the clause in question, and we must now move to the next business.

Douglas Hogg: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We must move on, and that is what I intend to do.

Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Sir Michael. If a genuine mistake has been made—and I believe that one has—ought there not to be a reconsideration?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Under the Sessional Order, Questions are put as I have put them. There is no way in which, having agreed to a Question, the House or Committee can return to it.

Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Sir Michael. I wonder whether we can look to the future just for a moment. As you will know, members of the Committee have followed the way in which you have put the Questions on the marshalled list, which makes plain that clause 17 gave rise to a free-standing debate. We all therefore expected to hear the Question on clause 17 put separately.
	May I make a suggestion, Sir Michael? If in future you put the Question on a clause out of the marshalled-list order, so that there is a risk of our being taken unawares, will you be good enough to make that plain? I think that there has been a mistake, and that there will be some surprise about what has happened.

The Second Deputy Chairman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is simply repeating a point that has already been made. I did not put the Question on clause 17 out of order. I explained clearly to the Committee what the vote would concern, and it was up to the Committee to listen. As I have said, we have already dealt with clause 17, and we must now move on.

David Blunkett: I hope that whatever disagreement has taken place will not sour the serious debate that we are about to have. [Interruption.] It has taken us until 6.35 pm to embark on a substantive discussion of the detail of the Bill, and I appeal to Members to be prepared to engage in that discussion rather than continuing to grumble from a sedentary position about the decision that has just been made.
	While evidence was being given to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, a number of issues were raised with me. I promised that I would think about them, and return to them in due course. One, which I mentioned on Monday, is the issue of the "reasonableness" clause—the provision requiring that a belief and suspicion must be reasonably held by the Home Secretary of the day in respect of judgments made by SIAC on the correctness of the certificate issued by the Home Secretary. I can confirm that we will table such a clause.
	I am aware that a piece of paper circulating among some Members implies that the insertion of the "reasonableness" clause will be at the expense of what was already there, in terms of SIAC's powers to overturn the certificate. That is not correct. The "reasonableness" clause is as well as, not instead of, the current position, as it were. I think it important for people not to be misled.
	Having heard the discussion in the Human Rights Committee and taken cognisance of approaches made by its chair, I think it only right to look again at some of the wording of the Bill, including clause 27(9). That subsection relates to links that someone may or may not have with a terrorist or a terrorist group. I think that the issue would be best addressed in the House of Lords, but I think we should make clear the connection someone would have to have with a particular group or groups. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), and for Redcar (Vera Baird), who made a point of drawing that to my attention. We are happy to examine—with our lawyers—how we can clarify the position.
	I must now apologise for referring to clause 27(9) in connection with links. I meant to refer to a different clause. Clause 27(9), in fact, gives rise to debate on the word "otherwise". I undertook to look at that wording too.

John Burnett: The Secretary of State mentioned the admirable speech of the hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). When he consults the lawyers, will he ask them whether, while proceedings are on their way to Strasbourg, the provision he has mentioned could be included in the "taking action" provision in the European convention on human rights?

David Blunkett: Having signed up to the convention, we are fully cognisant of it. I take the point, however, because there appears to have been some misunderstanding or at least misreporting of Lord Scott in relation to the interpretation of what is available to us and would be available to an appellant.
	With regard to the word "otherwise", the human rights Committee feared that a certificate might be altered in circumstances other than those in which a certificate might be found to be technically at fault without the substance of the proposition being at fault. The Committee felt that SIAC should have the right to draw attention to the fact, and that it should be possible for the certificate to be drawn up again. Our lawyers believe that the formulation of that particular provision is correct. I have agreed to examine it and to take advice. Should it not be the case that what we intended is achieved, we will be prepared to look at the matter in the other place.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I am sorry to take the Home Secretary back a little. I was rather taken by surprise by what he said in relation to Government amendment No. 70—that it does not increase the test for SIAC. The amendment would leave out
	"does not agree with the belief or suspicion",
	whereby SIAC could conclude that it did not agree with the belief and reverse it. The text now is
	"considers that there are no reasonable grounds for a belief or suspicion"
	In those circumstances, SIAC could conclude that the Home Secretary was wrong, but none the less be constrained by the clause because there were reasonable grounds to conclude that the detention should continue.

David Blunkett: The provision does not take away the power of SIAC. It clarifies the terms on which it would make its judgment, again within the provisions and terms agreed in the Rehman judgment. We referred to that at considerable length on Monday in terms of the evidential threshold and the process to be followed. It is on that basis and in response to the requests made to us that we wish to clarify what is described as the reasonableness test. I will stick to that. Having gone through the matter at considerable length, I am satisfied that we are improving, not worsening, the rights that are available and the clarity with which certificates will be dealt with by SIAC.
	There has been much misunderstanding all round in relation to the operation of SIAC, including by those who have great experience in the court. A letter in The Daily Telegraph—I am a great reader of The Daily Telegraph at the moment, which always enlightens me and sometimes infuriates me—from Peter Carter-Ruck of Great Hallingbury, who I understand is a renowned libel lawyer, so I am very careful to say what I am saying in the House rather than outside, accuses me of seeking to set up a Special Immigration Appeals Commission appointed by the Home Office. As I pointed out on Monday, it is already appointed through the Lord Chancellor.

John Burnett: Does the Home Secretary think that, without impugning the present Lord Chancellor, the system of appointment would be more objective if appointments to SIAC were made by the Lord Chief Justice?

David Blunkett: Appointments to a range of tribunals and appeals have been long established. On an emergency measure of this sort, to ask the Lord Chancellor to hand over to the Lord Chief Justice the appointments to the tribunals and commissions would be extraordinary, so I resist that.

Oliver Letwin: I am sorry, but I do not want to leave the point that was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) because I think that I am now in some confusion. On Government amendment No. 70, which changes the position from one in which SIAC could agree or disagree with the belief to one in which it must judge whether there are reasonable grounds for the belief, does the Home Secretary believe that he has made it more or less difficult for SIAC to reject the Home Secretary's decision?

David Blunkett: It is a mirror image of the change that we made in consequence—

Robert Marshall-Andrews: That is wrong.

David Blunkett: I understand that it is a mirror image of what we are seeking to achieve under clause 21.

Oliver Letwin: We may end up by agreeing about the matter on reflection. As I understand it, it is a double mirror image. The Home Secretary, or his lawyers, may think that, by changing to reasonable grounds—a move that we support and welcome—they have tightened the rule on what SIAC has to agree, but if all it is permitted to judge is whether there are reasonable grounds for the belief, the Home Secretary might make a decision—this was the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews)—with which it profoundly disagrees, but for which it admits he had some reasonable grounds. That is to enlarge the capacity of the Home Secretary and to diminish the capacity of SIAC.

David Blunkett: Yes, but SIAC cancels the certificate if it believes that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the person is a threat to the United Kingdom's national security, or suspecting that the person is an international terrorist. It is whether the grounds on which that certificate was issued are reasonable that is being inserted.
	If there is a genuine misunderstanding about this matter—we are desperately trying to ensure that we disagree on things—of course I will go back and look at it again, but my lawyers assure me that the measure provides the safeguards that were sought during the deliberations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Ross Cranston: Even if my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) is right, and I do not accept that he is, clause 25(2)(b) says that SIAC can cancel the certificate if it
	"considers that for some other reason the certificate should not have been issued",
	so SIAC is in charge. It can decide the matter in terms of both the facts and the law. I think that that is the absolute answer to my hon. and learned Friend's point.

David Blunkett: It is. I am grateful. As I was describing, that is the broader conclusion that is still built into the Bill. We have not taken that away. That was the point that I was seeking to make.

Annabelle Ewing: Does not the debate over the wording of the basis on which SIAC can look at certification orders suggest that, instead of trying to re-invent rules of evidence to that ad hoc, unusual body, the simpler way to deal with the matter would be to involve the courts fully and properly in the function of the system?

David Blunkett: I desperately tried to deal with that debate on Monday. I do not know whether the hon. Lady was here and took it in, but we dealt with the establishment of SIAC in 1997.

Annabelle Ewing: On a point of order, Sir Michael. Unfortunately, I was not here on Monday because I was dealing with matters in my constituency.

The Second Deputy Chairman: That is hardly a point of order.

David Blunkett: It is certainly a point of interest. I would like to put it on record that I wish I had been dealing with matters in my constituency as well.
	The serious point is that we dealt with the nature of the establishment of SIAC in 1997, which was universally agreed by the House. We dealt with the question of the type of evidence that was to be adduced, the fact that a High Court judge or someone who had been a High Court judge should have two other people sitting with him, that there was a right of appeal on a point of law to the Appeal Court and to the House of Lords if leave were given, and that the evidential base had been established.
	The issues around judicial review are being raised, particularly by the Liberal Democrats and others. When the certification process was established, and when eventually SIAC was put in place as an additional safeguard, it was seen as a review of the certification process for the Home Secretary. That is what it was established to do, with the appeal on the point of law clarifying whether the process had been properly carried through. Were judicial review to be reinstated between those processes, that could be done only on the basis of the provision of the evidence, admissibility and the rules that have been established and agreed not only by the House of Commons but by the House of Lords.

Norman Baker: Does the Home Secretary accept that, when SIAC was established, it was for a very different purpose—it was to deal with deportation, not incarceration?

David Blunkett: It was to deal with the ability to remove people from the country who were a threat to national security, or whose presence was adjudged not to be conducive to the public good. I do not intend to go on at length tonight because people have rightly said that they want to debate the issues and I need to allow them to do so, but that brings us back to the only central point that I want to remake. That point concerns precisely the choice addressed in part 4 of the Bill—whether to derogate, temporarily or otherwise, from the ECHR altogether.
	I do not accept the suggestion that, to do that, we could use article 58 of the convention, or pull out for a second or two under article 57. I do not believe for a moment that that would work or stand up to scrutiny. However, if, for the sake of argument, we were to come out of the ECHR, I would then have to sign a certificate declaring that I was prepared to send people back to regimes and judicial systems that we did not consider to be acceptable. Those regimes and systems would not stand up to scrutiny in court under the ECHR, in this country or in Strasbourg, because they do not provide for people properly or protect them from execution, torture or degrading treatment.
	That is the choice that we face. The official Opposition are at least clear that that choice exists. Members of the other main Opposition party, the Liberal Democrat party, believe that we should continue to let the people involved be free in this country if we did not have a workable extradition treaty with their home country, or if they were not able voluntarily to go to a third, safe, country. According to the Liberal Democrats, those people would go if they were able to but, if they were unable to go, they would remain free in our society, even though the judgment had been made that they put us at risk.
	In those very narrow circumstances, we are seeking to take the power of temporary detention, with the safeguards that we are now building in.

Mark Fisher: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject of SIAC, will he clarify the definition of the word "terrorist" to which it will work? I welcome what he had to say about rethinking the use of the word "links" in clause 21(2)(c), but I find it difficult to understand what has changed since the Terrorism Act 2000 was passed. Clause 40 of that Act contains a completely different definition of the word "terrorist".
	Has that definition proved inadequate and, if so, in what way? Why are we being asked to adopt two separate definitions of terrorism, and will not there be problems in reconciling two pieces of legislation that presumably should work in harness and reinforce each other but which, in this regard, appear to contradict each other?

David Blunkett: The substantive issue of whether the definitions in the 2000 Act and in this Bill contradict each other is dealt with in schedule 2, which relates to the 2000 Act. As my hon. Friend knows, we are dealing in this Bill with the extension of the international terrorist threat. That is why we are here tonight. Therefore, the Bill and the 2000 Act are clearly compatible.
	I know that all hon. Members are right to scrutinise whether lawyers—in government or outside, in the House or outside it—have got it right. On this occasion, I honestly believe that they know what they are talking about.

David Winnick: I do not belong to the usual suspects in this matter, as I believe that, given the circumstances, the powers that my right hon. Friend is asking for are justified. If they were not, I would not hesitate to oppose the Bill, along with some of my hon. Friends. All hon. Members reach their own judgments: that is the purpose of the House of Commons.
	I spoke about a specific case when my right hon. Friend was not in the Chamber, and I believe that, if we are going to take these very special powers following the events of 11 September, legal safeguards are necessary. I have noted everything that my right hon. Friend has said about SIAC, but I am afraid that I am not satisfied that the Bill can be passed without provisions for judicial review. It is absolutely essential that legal safeguards should exist, and that they are seen to exist. That is why I must support some form of judicial review.

David Blunkett: I note what my hon. Friend said, but I am afraid that, when passing legislation and dealing with evidence provided by the security and intelligence service on suspected terrorists, it is not possible to have a vague view of what judicial review should achieve. Should judicial review come between certification by the Home Secretary and by SIAC? If so, it would be unable to hear the evidence that had been presented to SIAC, and I remind hon. Members that that process has been agreed by the House. The people involved would be misled and deluded into believing that they were going through a meaningful process.
	If the review were to be concerned with SIAC's decision, based on the evidence provided and the circumstances in which that evidence was provided, it would come between the SIAC stage and an appeal court hearing based on a point of law—that point being whether the process had been conducted properly.
	I appeal to all those hon. Members who think instinctively that we need a certain provision because it applies in other circumstances to ask, not whether that provision is a good idea, but how it might be implemented. It is precisely to achieve some accuracy in these matters that I responded as I did on the question of terrorist links, which relates to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher).
	We have been talking about terrorists—people who are
	"concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of international terrorism".
	The provisions in the Bill do not replace the powers that already exist, but add to them.

Mike O'Brien: My right hon. Friend is right. As a Minister, I took through the House the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, which established SIAC. It was created with the intention of dealing with some very serious issues—among them detention, as many of the people who were to come before SIAC would be detained. The provisions also covered their removal from this country, which might be something that the people involved would greatly fear. That is why it was considered necessary to have a High Court judge, an immigration judge and a specialist in security matters to review the Home Secretary's opinion. They could direct that that opinion should be changed.
	If a judicial review procedure were inserted in this Bill, it would merely replace one High Court judge with the High Court judge that we have in SIAC. It would not provide the ability to keep confidential the intelligence information that SIAC can keep confidential. The divisional court does not have the appropriate procedures—short of introducing public interest immunity certificates, and I suspect that those who advocate judicial review would not want those certificates to be introduced in these circumstances anyway.

David Blunkett: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. In fact, on Monday, I read the Second Reading speech that he made in connection with the 1997 Act. It was very instructive and is why I know so much about SIAC. I appeal to the House: it is perfectly justifiable for hon. Members to want to do the right thing for the right reasons, but to want to do the right thing and then find out that one has done the wrong thing is neither justifiable nor wise.

Fiona Mactaggart: My concern is less with the appeal mechanism than with those who might be caught by the provisions in the Bill. Specifically, clause 21(2)(b) adds to those
	"concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of international terrorism"
	any person who
	"is a member of or belongs to an international terrorist group".
	This afternoon, the International Sikh Youth Federation was involved in a lobby of Parliament. Members of that organisation are or have been terrorists, and the group has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation. However, I assure my right hon. Friend that it also has members who are not terrorists. I am worried that we are planning to use the very serious measures contained in the Bill against people who are merely members of a group, and who are not suspected of being actively concerned in the commission of terrorism.

David Blunkett: I shall try to answer that question as delicately as I can, as that group, which was proscribed back in February, is appealing against the decision. I have a crucial role in the appeal, so my hon. Friend will forgive me for being circumspect. However, it must be understood that people who become members of groups that are banned in this country are subject to the law of the land. Obviously, people are free to join other organisations and democratically to make the point they wish to make. However, when the Prime Minister of India asks, as he did last week, whether we are serious about the organisations that are committing terrorists acts in terms of following up members of banned groups, the answer has to be yes.

Fiona Mactaggart: I quite understand that. I am concerned about the Bill's incarceration provisions and whether it is considered appropriate to hold in detention people who are simply members of some of these organisations.

David Blunkett: Let me make this clear. In our democracy, people are free to be members of, or belong to, an international organisation, but not an international terrorist group. They are not free to belong to a group that has been proscribed. There would have been no point in Parliament passing the legislation or in my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, having proscribed 21 groups if we were not going to implement it.

Diane Abbott: Further to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), one of the proscribed organisations is the PKK, a Kurdish nationalist organisation. In Stoke Newington, hundreds of people call themselves members of the PKK and go on marches. My local superintendent of police says that he cannot pick up hundreds of such people. Yet those people, who have joined what they perceive to be a legitimate nationalist group and have no intention of bombing or murdering anyone, will be at risk of incarceration if the Bill goes through unamended.

David Blunkett: This is a red herring; we will not pick up everyone who has been on a march or in a room with a particular group. We are talking about people who have connections with and are believed to be involved with such groups. I am clarifying the position about links precisely to avoid red herrings.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Blunkett: I will give way in a moment. I do not want us to get involved tonight in trying to determine who poses a risk to our national security or is engaging in international terrorism. The evidence must be adduced by the security and intelligence services and presented so that it convinces the Home Secretary of the day that a certificate should be issued. When a certificate is issued, the individual has a right to go to SIAC and to appeal. I have spelt that out—the judgment will depend not on whether people turn up to a PKK rally in Stoke Newington but on whether they pose a risk.

Simon Hughes: The House is wrestling with the fact that although the Home Secretary says that the powers would be used only as a last resort—which I accept—that is not what the Bill provides. The second issue relates directly to the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). People could be certificated by the Home Secretary and detained because they had links with a person who was a member of or belonged to an international terrorist group, yet those links are not defined anywhere in the Bill. Someone who has represented them could be caught. All sorts of people might be caught. Surely the Home Secretary accepts that legislation cannot be drawn this widely. It is dangerous.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The Secretary of State cannot possibly give way to interventions when he has not started dealing with the previous intervention.

David Blunkett: I will give way to one of my hon. Friends in just a second when I have answered the question. Taking into account the criteria that are laid down, I have accepted that "link" was not tight enough to ensure clarity about the nature of the connection with the group. That is precisely what I was responding to in saying that the members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights have a point. Therefore, during the Bill's passage through the two Houses, we will bring back a tighter definition that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman's concerns.

George Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as I suspect, each case will be dealt with on its own terms, on the basis of the evidence and information that is available? Given that some of that information will be very sensitive, it is probably not appropriate to spell out too clearly the circumstances in which he will make those judgments.

David Blunkett: That is true. However, let me stress—to avoid another red herring—that judgments will be made within the terms that we are laying down, the process that SIAC has to follow and the evidential base that has to be provided. Now that that has been challenged through the courts and is established as accepted, we can move forward in a sensible but sensitive way.
	That comes back to my earlier point about choice. We have the choice to do nothing or to take draconian action and give the Home Secretary powers to certificate and to remove people from the country whatever the circumstances. We can also choose to take the middle route, whereby we cannot use temporary detention when extraditing people or removing them to a third safe country.

Nick Palmer: Does the Home Secretary agree that a number of the points raised recently are partially covered by the fact that my right hon. Friend will issue a certificate only if he suspects that someone is an international terrorist under the terms that we have defined and believes that person's presence in the United Kingdom to be a risk to national security? It would not sufficient for someone to be a member of the PKK, for instance. He would have to be a member of the PKK whom my right hon. Friend believed was a risk to national security.
	Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to confirm that if a person is incarcerated under clause 23 and voluntarily chooses to leave, he will be free to do so.

David Blunkett: Yes, that is entirely correct. That is why talk of internment is inappropriate; that is not what we are proposing.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. He said a few moments ago that the law must be upheld and obeyed when he defended his right to proscribe a number of organisations, including the PKK. Does he accept, therefore, that the police will have the powers of sweep and of arrest, even if those people are subsequently released, as many were, under the prevention of terrorism legislation. If the Bill is designed to catch international terrorists individually, why is it not drafted to do so? Why is it drafted to catch people who are merely members of organisations that the Home Secretary, on advice from many sources, including the United States, believes to be international terrorist groups?

David Blunkett: I have just dealt substantively with that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) made the point that it is not a question of a single definition. I am slightly exasperated because I have said this, as have other hon. Friends, over and over again. It is a question not of a simple definition but of whether a person belongs to an organisation, as provided in the Bill. It is clear that with the exception of refining the term "links" we are specific about what is required, and SIAC would make a judgment on whether a case had been satisfactorily made when deciding whether a certificate was valid. The idea that those of us who carry that responsibility or those who sit on the appeals commission would agree to the detention of someone who did not seriously pose that risk is breathtaking and flies in the face of the process that has been undertaken in the past four and a half years, since SIAC was established, and our commitment to protecting civil and human rights. That is why we have agreed to a sunset clause and an annual review, as well as to a review by the reviewer, which lock in—as the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say, and probably will say next Tuesday—the protections that people seek to achieve.

Kevin McNamara: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that the Government will re-examine the definition of "links", which deals with the point made by the Joint Committee about the possibility of arbitrariness in the operation of these provisions. He said that he would not send people back to another country if he felt that they would be subject to torture or the possibility of the death penalty. Will he confirm that it is not his intention therefore to deport anybody to the United States or to accept an extradition order from that country? If any person connected with bin Laden or any other terrorist is captured by British forces in Afghanistan, will he confirm that they will not be transferred to the American authorities there, because by virtue of the executive order of the President of the United States—to which, my right hon. Friend will recall, he particularly drew my attention—and the draconian powers it contains, that person would be immediately subject to a possible punishment of death?

David Blunkett: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and I will answer the part that is relevant to the Bill and to my powers. I would not sign a certificate for any country with extradition arrangements unless it was prepared to agree to retain and maintain the extradition agreement signed by us. In any revision of the extradition agreement with Attorney General Ashcroft, which we will undoubtedly undertake because it has been in force for 27 years now, I would insist that that existing parameter remain in force. I would not transfer someone to the United States or elsewhere if I believed that that outcome would result. I hope that satisfies my hon. Friend.
	The issue is one of genuine choice. Some Opposition Members believe that it would be reasonable to give the Home Secretary the power in question, by removing the restraint of the ECHR. I do not take that view, but it is a reasonable alternative, albeit an unacceptable one in terms of the powers of our Parliament.

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman overstates the position of those of us who are arguing that the Home Secretary should have greater flexibility in exercising the power to deport people from this country who may pose a threat to national security. Has he seen the recommendation in the Home Affairs Committee's report, which states:
	"It would be desirable for the Home Secretary, who is accountable to Parliament, to be able to exercise his discretion within the framework of article 3."?
	That is the conclusion of a paragraph that says that
	"we do not, for a moment, suggest that the Government should send people back to countries where they would be at risk of torture or ill-treatment".
	Is not the problem that the jurisprudence under article 3 has made it so difficult to deport anybody in any circumstances, because the Home Secretary is not allowed to take into account, according to the Chahal judgment, the risk that they may pose to the United Kingdom?

David Blunkett: It is true that the jurisprudence on that case, to which I have referred publicly, constrained what was possible, but—and this is an interesting point for the immediate future and we will return with a substantive extradition Bill in the new year—if we cannot reach an extradition agreement, it is not right to ask the Home Secretary to certify the risk in those countries that do not have judicial systems that are acceptable according to our terms and with which we do not have an extradition agreement that locks in the safeguards that we would seek. Even if we have queries about some countries' judicial systems, we have extradition agreements that safeguard the process when someone arrives back in one of those countries.
	It is not right to ask the Home Secretary to take a risk in a grey area, where an extradited person may be summarily executed or tortured. We need to be open and clear, so that we do not say one moment that we do not want to detain people, but the next moment say that we are prepared to take the risk, on the certification of the Home Secretary, that someone will not be put to death. That is why the difficult but necessary compromise that we are putting to the Committee is the right one, and why the Government will seek to gain the assent and support of both Houses of Parliament in carrying it through.

Oliver Letwin: rose—

David Blunkett: I had intended to finish, but to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman I shall find another sentence.

Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the Home Secretary. He has given an accurate and compelling description of the disposition of the Conservatives, the Government and the Liberal Democrats, but one element needs to be refined. He describes his choice, which is to give himself the power that he calls indefinite detention, as not being internment. He rightly says that in some technical sense the people he is interning—as I would call it—have the right to leave voluntarily. However, he has made the argument powerfully—although I disagree with it—that the choice that falls to those people is to go to countries to which he says he would not deport them. I do not understand in what meaningful sense someone could be said voluntarily to be able to leave if the circumstances of their departure are such that he would not compel them to go to that place.

David Blunkett: That is an interesting debating point. I should warn the hon. Member that I have read chunks of his 1999 book, which relates, interestingly, to definitions of freedom and the role of politics. I happen to believe that if people wish to leave this country after they have come here voluntarily, they should be free to do so. If they choose to do so, that is very different from a Home Secretary deporting them on a certificate in the belief that they are a risk, but in circumstances in which their lives would then be at risk.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Blunkett: We are about to enter the M25 on the issue, but because blood pressure should not be allowed to rise too high, I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central.

Mark Fisher: The Home Secretary is willing to allow people voluntarily to leave the country whom he has good reason to suspect are associated with international terrorism. It cannot be good to let loose into the international community people whom he believes to be international terrorists; they should be detained and prosecuted here. We would do international security no favours by allowing those people to go voluntarily to another country.

David Blunkett: That is the dilemma we have struggled with. The obvious answer is for my hon. Friend to table an amendment on Report that the process, including the role of certification and the review by SIAC, should lead to the person being imprisoned, even though the evidence base differs from the one that would usually be used and would normally be available to commit them for a set period of time to prison.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Blunkett: No, I shall not give way. I want to finish the point.
	There is a good debating point as to whether someone should be ejected from the country, but let me make it clear: we are using immigration powers—we are relating them to the issue of someone who has voluntarily come into our country, was hosted by this country, but whom we wish to remove on the grounds that they are a risk to our national security or that their presence is not conducive to the public good. We are challenged on that, not in terms of the fact that, historically, we can do that, because under the Immigration Act 1971—in schedule 3, I think: just for Simon Carr of The Independent, I was not referring to braille to enable me to remember that point—[Interruption.] He would not be in the Gallery because he will be having a good dinner somewhere. The biggest choice that he will have made will not have been at Sainsbury's but on the quality of the wine that he is buying on the expense account of The Independent. He cannot say anything more vile about me than he said on Tuesday morning, so he can get his own back at length, and undoubtedly, often—[Interruption.] Muesli will not be on the menu.
	The serious point is that under those immigration powers, we had the ability to deport someone from this country. What has got in our way was the judgment that we were unable to ask a person to leave because their life was at risk. I rest my case.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I now have to announce the results of the Division deferred from a previous day.
	On the motion on Human Rights, the Ayes were 331, the Noes were 74, so the motion was agreed to.
	[The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Simon Hughes: It is an indication of the huge importance of this debate that the Committee is very full. I hope that the Home Secretary will accept that we have listened to him with great attention, and that colleagues on both sides of the House are trying to deal with a set of complex matters that have greatly preoccupied many hon. Members and many people outside this place.
	Two parliamentary Committees, the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, have attentively deliberated and given helpful advice. When we began the debate, I was conscious of the fact that we had about one-and-three-quarter hours to discuss 15 clauses, 22 amendments and one new clause to do with what the letter column of The Times—not The Guardian—in a headline above letters from Lord Donaldson, Lord Russell and Professor Brian Simpson described as
	"Inherent dangers in plan to intern terrorist suspects".
	The House accepts that the Home Secretary has a duty to try to think of ways of dealing with the issue. We all understand. There is no dissent about that. The Home Secretary has not only the opportunity but the duty to do that, and we do not criticise him at all.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that three different types of conclusion have been reached. The Government's conclusion is in the proposal that we are discussing. The Conservatives' conclusion relates to other articles of the human rights convention and would allow people to be sent back to countries to which the Home Secretary and I agree we would not want them sent. We believe that it is better to uphold our international obligations not to send people to such countries—and that view is confirmed by the all-party Home Affairs Committee.
	The third conclusion is that expressed by my colleagues and me. I shall summarise it in a moment, because it is important that the Home Secretary and I do not disagree about what the different positions are.
	This debate is hugely important for all us. I shall try to explain objectively why that is so, by reading one paragraph from the report of the Home Affairs Committee, published last Monday. Paragraph 32 states:
	"One ground for concern is the quality of the intelligence information on which detention was based. We note that in 1991, some 176 Iraqis and other Arabs were detained during the Gulf war. We understand that many of those, if not all, were eventually released without charge and some were subsequently awarded compensation."
	We are debating proposed laws that risk doing injustice to people, so it is hugely important that the House, collectively, should try not to do that. Those people would not by definition be British but that does not reduce our obligations, as I am sure the Home Secretary agrees.
	From the two Select Committee reports, I have drawn seven suggestions that would make the legislation more specific and targeted. The first is that we should define more tightly the term "international terrorists". The Home Secretary has helpfully acknowledged that he is willing to consider that, so I shall not pursue the point. I remind him that the Human Rights Committee noted that no other legislation authorises detention on the basis of criteria so vague as the current measure.
	Secondly, the Select Committee makes the serious point that the legislation could be held to discriminate on grounds of nationality. We are proposing to detain people who are not British nationals and do not have the right to indefinite residence. We would not propose so to detain British nationals, so such provisions might be illegal under human rights and other international law. The Select Committee was not persuaded by the Home Secretary's evidence.
	The third suggestion relates to an important point in clause 27—it would be easy to become technical at this stage, but I shall try not to be. That point is addressed in an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), as a result of the Select Committee's considerations, and in amendment No. 114, tabled by my hon. Friends and me. The provisions deal with circumstances in which, when a certificate has been cancelled, another certificate can be issued. They deal with the criticism that has been properly made of the clause. The clause states that a certificate can be reissued
	"on the grounds of a change of circumstance or otherwise".
	That is too wide. Will the Home Secretary consider amendment No. 114, which seeks to be even more specific than the amendment tabled by the hon. Lady?
	The Home Secretary has dealt in part with my fourth point. The initial issue of the certificate should be subject to a test of reasonableness. I shall return to that point. The Home Secretary has accepted that the measure should include such a proposal.
	I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is also minded to accept my fifth suggestion, which is also based on Select Committee advice: it is far better that the right to be represented—even in the unusual circumstances of an appeal hearing—should continue through each stage of the hearing, even if it goes to appeal at the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. The reason is obvious: there may be new evidence that the representative of the detained person might not otherwise see and about which they could not argue before the commission.
	The sixth point relates to the length of detention. To summarise one of the amendments, it would be much more acceptable if the length of detention without automatic review were shorter. We have proposed that the intervals should be no longer than three months. After that, detention should be reviewed.
	The seventh point is that the police should not, as proposed, hold the fingerprints of asylum seekers indefinitely, as though they were in the same category as people who were being held in relation to other crimes, but that there should be a limitation. It is most unfair to group together people who have been suspected of a crime and those who are only in this country because they are seeking asylum.
	So there are seven specific proposals for improvement, and I hope that they will all find favour with the Government today or, at worst, next week when the Bill is considered in the House of Lords. They have all-party support, although they have been proposed in different ways.
	The Home Secretary rightly wants to know what alternative general argument my colleagues and I would put. Before I turn to the specifics, which I can do very briefly, I shall put two very simple principles to him. First, this is not a matter for lawyers and judges; it is an issue for ordinary individuals who may become swept up in a nationalist fervour or become involved with other people who are, or who may come here as students, or who may have family in this country and who find themselves suspected by the intelligence services or others of being involved in terrorism in some way.
	I hope that we can get away from thinking that the concerns about judicial review are the concerns of lawyers. They are absolutely not lawyers' concerns. This country's history is one of dealing with people—whether British born or immigrants—and ensuring that they are treated properly, but cases have often ended up in the courts because the Executive have failed those people. Tribunals have often been involved, and judges and lawyers have often had to help them to argue their cases. They may have had no English or poor English; they may have been elderly or infirm.
	Detention without trial is a citizens' issue; it is an issue of civil liberty for the ordinary, non-professional individual. I hope that the debate can continue on the assumption that this issue is not academic or esoteric; it goes to the core of whether everyone has equality before the law in this great country of ours.

Oliver Letwin: I want to be clear about the hon. Gentleman's argument in relation to part 4. Is he arguing that there is no substantial difference between a United Kingdom citizen who poses a threat and a foreign national who poses a threat and that he would prefer part 4 to be eliminated altogether? Does he want to join us and others in wanting to limit those provisions as a second-best solution? Or is he arguing, as I would, that, in some circumstances, the Home Secretary has a moral right to take action against foreign nationals who pose a threat to our security that he would not necessarily be able to take in relation to our own citizens?

Simon Hughes: Those are perfectly proper questions, as I would expect from the hon. Gentleman. It is perfectly reasonable to deal differently, as far as is required, with people who are United Kingdom citizens, who by definition have a right to live here, and people who do not have that right. We must all be permitted to accept that discrimination. The answer to the question about what we would argue should therefore happen is to be found in the improvements to the process that we and others have proposed. I can list those proposals very simply.
	First, we should look for international solutions, just as we have done in the context of the International Criminal Court. That point was picked up by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who serves on the Home Affairs Committee. The sooner we can find a Europe-wide solution for people who are not citizens of any given country the better. That is one route that we must pursue, but I accept that we cannot do it today.
	Secondly, as suggested to the Select Committees, there are a panoply of offences under current terrorism legislation, especially the Terrorism Act 2000, which do not appear to have been considered or used but which appear to fit the bill. I shall give two examples. I served on the Committee that considered the 2000 Act and remember the long debates. People can already be arrested, charged and prosecuted for directing activities and incitement to commit terrorism abroad under that Act, in which terrorism is broadly defined. We should consider those offences before we conclude that they do not work.
	The third option, which was proposed in evidence to the Select Committees, is that if the evidence is defective, we should ask the Intelligence and Security Committee—which reports to the Prime Minister—and the Joint Committee on Human Rights to consider whether ways in which evidence is dealt with might be better adjusted in such circumstances, so that things that are currently precluded could be allowed in evidence, thus allowing trial and conviction. I do not pretend that that would necessarily allow the detention of everyone the Home Secretary has in mind, but we should try them first. We should never go down the road that ends in detention without trial—possibly for five years, as we agreed on Monday, although that is subject to review—without first considering every single other option.

Douglas Hogg: I want to take the hon. Gentleman back to his second option—to consider the existing offences under the Terrorism Act 2000. We could reinforce that approach by changing the standard for proof, so that the offence could be established on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, the civil rather than the criminal standard could be applied.

Simon Hughes: That proposal is controversial, but perfectly proper, and it leads us to the fact that we cannot properly get this law right unless we consider how to get to where we all agree we want to go without, by accident, getting to where many of us agree we should not go. However, we are precluded from doing so tonight. That is the problem with the process.
	I want to make another point before dealing with the other amendments in the group—I am conscious that this debate is ridiculously restricted. There is a real issue about asylum seekers, but we will not have a chance to consider it again. Again, Select Committees addressed that issue. I have asked the new representative in the United Kingdom of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and my advice is that under the convention on refugees we have to allow people to put their case. Then we can say, "They are precluded from qualifying because of the exception rule"—that is, because of their track record. But we cannot preclude people from having their asylum case considered by simply imposing a barrier. That is an important distinction, and international law is on the side of the UNHCR.
	We welcome the Government's proposals in amendments to clause 21 to move from the test of believing to that of "reasonably" believing, but the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and I believe that there should be a higher test than that, and both main Opposition parties have tabled an amendment to that effect. We believe that the phrase "substantial grounds to believe" should be used in that test before the certification process is triggered. We have tabled a series of amendments, such as amendments Nos. 96 and 97, to deal with that issue, as well as that involving substantial grounds for suspicion.
	We argue that we should at least limit the grounds for excluding judicial review, but Liberal Democrat Members and many others on both sides of the House would prefer it if clauses 21 and 29 were removed altogether.

Kevin McNamara: And clause 23. That is the principal one.

Simon Hughes: I think that the hon. Gentleman would accept that clauses 21 and 29 are the key ones.

Kevin McNamara: rose—

Simon Hughes: Of course I accept that clause 23 is very important. There is a strong view in the House and in the Select Committees that those clauses should be deleted and that no qualification is appropriate because the other processes that I suggest should be tried first.
	I have said that the review period must be shorter. There is an important need to tighten the grounds for issuing new certificates. The Scottish National party and others have tabled amendments that deal with improving the SIAC process, inasmuch as that process will be appropriate. In addition to the recommendations of the Select Committees, the SNP has made welcome recommendations to have a two-year maximum period.
	It is crucial that we do not let things with which we are uncomfortable leave Committee. I say this carefully, but it is better to give the Executive too little power at the moment than to give them too much. Had we voted for an automatic sunset provision, we might be willing and able to err in the other direction. However, because we do not have that qualification to the extent that we would wish, I ask the Committee to be cautious.
	These are just about the most serious issues that this place can debate. We do not have enough time to do them justice, but I hope that the Home Secretary will respond to all positive suggestions for improving the Bill. I hope that the Committee will vote to keep the right of the courts always to be able to make sure that the Executive are doing their job properly.

Jean Corston: I shall be as brief as I possibly can in view of the number of Members who wish to speak.
	I thank the Home Secretary for giving us assurances in respect of amendment No. 126, standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). It contains what I describe as the "otherwise test." I also thank him for agreeing to reconsider the definition of "links with", because both issues were drawn to the attention of the House by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which my hon. Friend and I are members.
	Amendment No. 127 deals with the appeal procedure. The Joint Committee was persuaded that the due process of rights and obligations was fulfilled under SIAC because it can offer a full hearing on the merits of a case, because a nominated representative can represent the interests of the applicant and because there is an opportunity to appeal on points of law. However, before the Court of Appeal or on appeal from that court to the House of Lords, there is a risk that the appeals procedure would be insufficient to meet the standards of articles 5(4) or article 6 of the European convention on human rights, because there is no provision under the legislation or under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 for the nominated representative to represent the applicant's interest in the appeal.
	Therefore, there might be a violation of the European convention on human rights if the nature of national security considerations in the case unduly inhibited an applicant or his or her representatives from formulating a point of law or if new evidence was presented on appeal on behalf of the Secretary of State.

David Blunkett: I am mindful of the interpretation that has been made. Within the terms that we discussed at the Human Rights Committee and in the debate on Monday, lawyers advise me that, when the advocate—the person nominated from the list provided—is appointed for the particular purposes of evidence that would not be admissible in other circumstances, nothing precludes the representative nominated by the person concerned from taking other aspects of the case, including appeal. That person may also decide to nominate themselves as the advocate and take the appeal to the Court of Appeal or to the Lords if leave is given.

Jean Corston: I thank my right hon. Friend; that is very helpful. We tabled the amendment because, when we took evidence from him and his officials on 14 November, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) raised this particular point at question 39 of the minutes of evidence. In response, Mr. Carter, an assistant legal adviser to the Home Office, said:
	"The Court of Appeal, as I understand it, in the Rehman case allowed a special representative who acted before SIAC".
	My right hon. Friend added:
	"So they could if they wished."
	Bearing in mind the fact that amendment No. 127 refers to the "avoidance of doubt", it seems to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar that it would be entirely sensible for the Bill to make it clear that such representation is a matter of right.

Oliver Letwin: I do not want to detain the House long. Much of what I want to say about this group of amendments and clauses was said on Second Reading. I certainly do not want to rehearse those arguments again.
	I shall briefly touch on amendment No. 98, which was tabled jointly with Liberal Democrat Members. If we understand the issue correctly, the amendment represents a position that I would have expected the Home Secretary to hold as well. I therefore wonder whether we have made an error or whether he has. We shall perhaps see which is the case during the debate.
	The current articulation of part 4 is such that it quite rightly and very specifically excludes from the indefinite detention provisions anybody who is a UK citizen. Such a person would obviously not fall to be removed, so the triggers that are available in part 4 would not apply to a UK citizen.
	The provisions deal with foreign nationals. If a particular foreign national were to come to the UK with the ambition—in the Home Secretary's belief, reasonable belief or substantial grounds for belief—of aiming at the destruction of Baghdad or New York, the Home Secretary would be able, under part 4 and subject to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, to detain that individual indefinitely. However, the oddity of the situation is that the second definition in clause 21(4) would mean that, if that same individual coming from the same foreign place had it in mind—in the Home Secretary's belief, reasonable belief or whatever—to blow up Belfast as part of a joint operation with the Real IRA, the Home Secretary would not be able to detain that person indefinitely.
	I do not know whether the judgment of our compatriots over the ages will be that part 4 is right or wrong. However, like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the leader of the Ulster Unionist party and, I believe, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, I am clear that if part 4, however it may be amended, is justified, it should apply equally to a foreign national who has in his sights Belfast as much as if he had in his sights Baghdad.

Mark Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the position of what I would term "hybrid cases", in which the Home Secretary can identify a group of people who are engaged in planning for a terrorist activity? Some of them will fall within the Bill's remit but the others may be English nationals and will not. How will the nationals be treated when the people with whom they are plotting will be covered by the Bill? Is not such a hybrid case a genuine problem? How would the hon. Gentleman's amendment tackle it?

Oliver Letwin: I have wrestled with that very question and that is what gave rise to my intervention on the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). I may be wrong, because I do not believe it will possible for some time to tell whether what any of us believes is right or wrong. However, I shall describe the conclusion that I have reached.
	I believe that there is a substantial difference between the protection of civil liberty that we should feel we have a duty to accord to those who are our fellow citizens, whatever they may be doing or plotting, and the protection of civil liberty that we feel we should have a duty to accord to foreign nationals. I accept that that is a very difficult distinction to make. Both groups are human beings and it is necessary to accord respect to both. However, when someone who is not a national enters our country, there is a special obligation on that person not to use us as a base for his activities and not to attack us. If someone is a citizen of this country, however, there is a special obligation on us to treat them in a certain way. I admit all the difficulties of that distinction, and I suspect that the Home Secretary does too, but I join him in making it.
	To answer the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) straight, our amendment does not deal with what he identifies, although I do not, as the problem of hybridity. That is an anomaly, an inelegance and perhaps even a problem in the long term, but in the short term the bigger problem is with a person who is a foreign national. I am willing to join the Home Secretary in agreeing that such a person should be detained in some circumstances. If that foreign national has it in mind to blow up part of our country, the provisions for detention do not apply. That is strange and I cannot find it in me to support that distinction.

Andrew Hunter: Is not the issue of hybridity more complex than that? According to media reports, seven men are held under the successor to the Prevention of Terrorism Acts, two of whom are Irish citizens, five of whom are United Kingdom citizens. If the Bill becomes law, a different legal regime will apply to the two on the assumption that they are Irish citizens and the others are UK citizens. Where do we stand on dual citizenship? Tens of thousands of UK citizens who identify themselves with a nationalist background in Northern Ireland have dual citizenship. How does one define them? If they commit a terrorist offence, are they foreign terrorists or domestic terrorists?

Oliver Letwin: The problem is that the difficulty to which my hon. Friend alludes does not arise from the Bill. In the case to which he refers, neither the Irish nationals nor the UK nationals would be caught by the provisions for indefinite detention. In that context, the Irish nationals would be concerned only with the affairs of a part of the UK, so they would be excluded from the provisions. That is the exclusion that the leader of the Ulster Unionists, my right hon. Friend the leader of the Conservative party, my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey cannot stomach. I hope that the Home Secretary makes the change recommended in amendment No. 98, although another method of achieving that would be acceptable.
	We tabled amendment No. 101 to provide for strictly limited judicial review. On Second Reading there was a fascinating exchange between the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston), the Home Secretary, other hon. Members and me. The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North is a former Solicitor-General and a distinguished jurist. He argued that there was no need for the limited scope of judicial review that the amendment would introduce because an appeal on a point of law could include an appeal on the question of whether SIAC had conformed to its procedures as laid down by the Lord Chancellor.
	Following that debate, we again consulted jurists—hopefully as distinguished as the hon. and learned Gentleman—who do not take such a clear view. I am genuinely in doubt about what the situation is, and I should like the Home Secretary to reassure us that if it turns out that the appeal on a point of law does not provide for appeals relating to the procedure of SIAC, he will amend the law immediately to ensure that such appeals are possible. If he gives that assurance, we will happily not push our amendment to a vote either here or in the House of Lords. I have no wish to saddle the Bill with an unnecessary amendment.

David Blunkett: I will not saddle myself with an immediate answer. Instead, in the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's comments, I agree to examine that matter for the purpose of clarification between now and the Bill's entry into the House of Lords.

Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that. We await his considered view. I accept that we cannot expect him to give an immediate decision.
	It is difficult to be clear on such a complex chain of argument, but I hope to set out our position on detention and deportation, which we recommend as an alternative solution. I want to stress that there is no question of the Conservative party suggesting that a Home Secretary should be compelled to remove a person to what he regards as an unacceptable fate. We accept that he should judge whether a particular fate is unacceptable in the light of the character of that fate for that person and of the risk to our national security posed by that person. We want the Home Secretary to take powers that give him the flexibility to make that judgment case by case. In many instances—for example, in relation to India and the United States—it would be reasonable to use the power of removal rather than to detain the individuals. That would pose a lesser risk.
	It is on that basis and that basis alone that we would be reasonably comfortable with the detention powers, as modified by the amendments that we tabled with the Liberal Democrats and those tabled by the Home Secretary. We would be willing to subscribe with the gravest reservations to part 4 even if he does not accept our alternative flexible arrangements, because we accept the argument that he probably does not have sufficient powers to deal with the situation that he judges to be so serious.
	I cannot say, as the debate unfolds in the House and the other place, whether we would be willing to stomach these powers if clause 29 remains intact and there is no further judicial review of the merits. We are struggling inwardly with that. If we were to vote on clause 29 today, I would ask my hon. Friends to abstain while we wrestle further with that problem. I hope that the Home Secretary will also wrestle with it, so that when the Bill eventually emerges from the other place, which has so much more time to consider it, we will have found a solution that makes the detention clauses as unobnoxious to our civil liberties as possible. They must also do as little as possible to endanger our country's reputation and safety when we consider the possibility of the friends and relations of those detained using certain methods to get them out.
	With those provisos and reservations we give a highly qualified backing to the clauses that cause so many hon. Members on both sides of the House such concern.

Denzil Davies: I shall briefly raise what may appear to be a somewhat technical point concerning clause 25.
	Amendments have been tabled to clause 25, but I do not wish to discuss them. The only question that I have for the Home Secretary relates to the primary legislation, if I may refer to it in that way—the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997. My right hon. Friend said that he had read the Hansard of the Second Reading debate of that legislation. I do not know whether he has had a chance to read the Act, but that Act sets out in section 2 the jurisdiction of the commission, and the jurisdiction relates to the various Acts—mainly immigration Acts—that are set out in subsection (2).
	Of course subsection (2) does not refer to clause 25 of the Bill before us, because it was a 1997 Act. Clause 25 says:
	"A suspected . . . terrorist may appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission against his certification under section 21."
	There may be something else in the legislation that I have missed—there may be an amendment of the 1997 Act somewhere in the legislation—but merely to state that fact does not confer on the Special Immigration Appeals Commission the power to hear appeals under clause 21. There may be a catch-all clause somewhere in the 1997 Act, but I have not found that either.
	It has been argued in previous debates on the Bill that SIAC, or whatever it is called, is not appropriate. The Home Secretary says that of course it is because it is about immigration and we are talking about immigration, but I believe that one has to look at the specific areas of jurisdiction in relation to legislation for which SIAC was established; and it is established under section 2 of the 1997 Act.
	My simple question, which does not go to the heart of the Bill but is necessary in the interests of clarity—after all, we are in Committee—is: is my right hon. Friend satisfied that merely stating that SIAC can hear appeals under clause 21 gives it a jurisdiction to do so? The parent Act, the 1997 Act, obviously cannot relate to this present legislation.

David Blunkett: I wish to be helpful. I believe that it does have jurisdiction, because it is dealing with the powers that were granted, long before SIAC was created, in terms of certification. The role of SIAC, agreed in 1997, was hence to deal with that certification process. I am happy to provide the necessary legal evidence to my right hon. Friend and to other Members if that will help—over the next two weeks—them to be fully satisfied that what we are saying is the case.

Denzil Davies: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am not criticising him when I say that I do not really understand. Apparently there were some powers that were there before SIAC was established, and we are now taking those from the air, or somewhere, and bringing them back. That may be the case, but I will avail myself of my right hon. Friend's kind offer, and if his lawyers, who I am sure are worthy gentlemen, and obviously better than some lawyers in private practice, are prepared to supply him with chapter and verse, which I am sure that he will sign, we shall all be very happy.

George Osborne: I want to speak briefly on the clauses. I welcome the limited sunset clause that has been agreed to. My good and hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who is not in his place, put his name to that amendment. It was the first amendment that he had ever put his name to, and he is in deep shock because the Government have accepted it.

Angela Eagle: He is not here.

George Osborne: He is not here because, I believe, he has a dinner; we dealt with that earlier in Committee. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] Well, I am here, so I should like to say that, in my view, the sunset clause only makes part 4 less bad than it was. We are undermining the basic, historical liberties that have been established over hundreds of years of common law—basic liberties such as the right to a writ of habeas corpus, the right to normal legal proceedings, the right to know what a person is accused of and the right to challenge that evidence in a court of law. I notice that, in the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which it did extremely well to produce in such a short time, Lord Donaldson, the former Master of the Rolls, is quoted as follows:
	"The right of an individual to apply to the courts by judicial review for a writ of habeas corpus . . . is one of the foundations of the rule of law and . . . previous attempts by Parliament and others to exclude the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts in various contexts . . . have"
	all
	"been held to be ineffective."
	We know where the Government are coming from on this, because in recent weeks the Home Secretary has made no secret of the disdain in which he holds lawyers. He expressed it in his speech to the Labour party conference. He expressed it in his article in The Times after his conference speech, in which he said that
	"British democracy was not created by lawyers and judges"—
	which I believe to be a misunderstanding of the history of this country, because we cannot point to a single—

Annabelle Ewing: The hon. Gentleman is not the only guilty party, because this confusion has been a feature of our discussions in Committee tonight. There are various legal systems in the United Kingdom and it is wholly inaccurate to refer to British law in the various circumstances covered by the Bill.

George Osborne: I am happy to confine myself to English law, which has a long history of liberty established by the rule of common law and by decisions of judges and jurists over many centuries, which are in many cases as important as acts of revolution or Acts passed in the House over the centuries.
	Today we find ourselves contorting our long tradition of domestic liberty. We are jumping through legal hoops. We are going through legal fictions, such as declaring ourselves to be in a state of public emergency, because we—by that I mean Governments who have acted in our name and that of the House—have signed themselves up to international agreements that have been interpreted far more widely than was expected when they were signed up to.
	We have already gone through the steps of derogating from article 5 of the European convention on human rights, and I have yet to hear a convincing explanation from a Minister of why we cannot go through the process suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), which is to withdraw from the European convention for a split second and rejoin with reservations, which are exactly what France has. By doing so, we would be dealing with the root cause of all the problems that we have been discussing today and on Monday—the conventions that we have signed up to and the way in which they are interpreted by lawyers—and we would have no need to twist our domestic laws and liberties.

Diane Abbott: We are now, happily, moving from the choreography of carefully calibrated concessions on to the substance of the Bill, and the substance of the set of clauses before us is the notion of internment without trial. I have heard Ministers say that it is not internment because people can always leave the country, but I point out to colleagues that anyone who knows anything about the workings of the immigration system knows that it is highly unlikely that any other European Union or American state would accept someone whom we had just interned, so in reality the only place they could go would be the country in which they were at risk of torture or worse—so it will feel, and look, very much like internment without trial.
	Much has been made of the suddenness with which this issue has been blown up and the importance of moving speedily, but it has long been the wish of some of the most gruesome, most barbaric, most undemocratic regimes in the world to get the Government to act against people whom they deem to be terrorists. Finally, and fortuitously for them, they have got their wish in these clauses on internment.
	As other hon. Members have pointed out, these clauses potentially have a very wide ambit. It is no good Ministers briefing people privately that only half a dozen individuals will be affected. Thousands of people in this country are card-carrying members of organisations that we, perhaps rightly, have proscribed, but which they consider to be nationalist groups of a somewhat robust nature. I know that membership of the PKK or of certain Sikh organisations will not, on its own, bring people within the ambit of certification, but the Bill is potentially wide ranging, and that is why it is unfortunate that we have so little time to debate it.
	Let me remind the House that it has long been accepted, certainly by most Labour Members, that internment was one of the best recruitment sergeants that the IRA ever had. We are supposed to be acting against terrorism and reassuring young people, whether they are Muslim or Catholic, about the fairness of British society and the things that we stand for, but the notion of internment without trial runs clean contrary to the idea of an effective war against terrorism. Even if it were possible to persuade some of us that in certain limited circumstances—much more prescribed than those in the Bill—internment was the only practical option, the notion of internment without judicial review would be completely unacceptable.
	I know that I will see colleagues marching through the Lobby to vote for internment without trial whom, many years ago, I would never have dreamt of seeing voting for such a thing. The Government, with the size of their majority, can pass these clauses any which way they like, but many hon. Members on both sides of the House look to the Lords to make this legislation acceptable both to the course of an effective war on terrorism and to this country's traditions of liberty and justice.

Annabelle Ewing: I shall be brief because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. It goes without saying that many of the Bill's provisions are welcome and do not cause concern, but I am afraid that part 4 does not fall into that category. I join the many hon. Members on both sides of the House who lament the extremely limited time that we have been given to examine these fundamental provisions.
	As a lawyer—one of that popular breed—and a Scottish Member, I must point out that many of the provisions will have a significant impact on Scots criminal law. It is a great shame that we are debating them in a Committee of the whole House in proceedings that will last only three days. Only one Scottish Labour Member has seen fit to participate and, when one considers that the Scottish Executive happily proposed in a Sewel motion that the matter be passed to Westminster to be dealt with, that is a great shame for all those who have an interest in the integrity of Scots law.
	The SNP cannot support a measure to introduce detention without trial. We believe that the right to trial following detention is a fundamental tenet of the legal systems in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. If the Government are to depart from that, they will have to make a much better case. That is why my hon. Friends and I voted against the motion to invoke the derogation from the European convention on human rights. It is notable that no other contracting party to the convention has sought that derogation, and the UK Government have failed to make a case for their desire to do so.
	I find it staggering that the Government seek not only to invoke a derogation but, in clause 30, to preclude the jurisdiction of our supreme courts to test the validity of that derogation by way of judicial review. That is why my hon. Friends and I have tabled an amendment to the clause.
	Many comments have been made about SIAC, and I made an intervention on the nature of that strange body. One hon. Gentleman made the point that if we involved the courts fully, it would be like substituting one High Court judge for another. With respect, that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the legal systems in this country. To say that SIAC is a court could not be further from the truth. It bears no resemblance to a court, and if we want to bestow on that body significant powers on the right to appeal and to a trial following detention, we should come out and say so, instead of pretending that SIAC is a court of law.
	It is not helpful to say that there is an appeal on a point of law which may or may not involve certain procedural matters. We are talking about the right to appeal, on a point of fact or law, to the court of first instance about the decision of the court of first instance. Which court would then determine the merits of the initial decision? The answer is no court. Surely we cannot sign up to such a fundamental breach of our civil liberties without due cause being shown, which it has not been.
	My colleagues and I will be unable to support the clauses. The Home Secretary pointed out that choices had to be made, and he is correct. In any measure to be adopted, there is always a balance to be struck between the interests of security and respect for fundamental civil liberties. The Government have not struck that balance in part 4.

Mike O'Brien: I rise to support the provisions that the Home Secretary has brought to the House, but also to say how pleased I am with his agreement to make concessions. Like many Members, I am uncomfortable with some of the provisions, particularly those on detention and human rights legislation. I helped to get that legislation through the House, and I feel distinctly uncomfortable about circumstances in which it may be undermined. The sunset clause agreed by the Home Secretary is therefore very welcome, and I congratulate members of the Home Affairs Committee on their efforts to secure that.
	The circumstances facing this country after 11 September mean that there is a serious threat to the people of this country, which means that we should take the necessary steps to protect them. There are people in the United Kingdom who are wanted for terrorism in other countries; they may have committed no offence in this country for which we can arrest them, but we cannot return them to their country of origin. In the current international crisis, we must be able to deal with such situations.
	When the Human Rights Act 1998 was being discussed, we were well aware that this problem might present itself. At that stage, however, it did not look as if the threat from such individuals would be great. After 11 September, the situation changed. I hope that in due course we will be able to overturn our derogation from part of the European convention on human rights and fully comply with it. That may well be some time in the future, but the sooner the better. What is required now is a balanced response, and that is what the Government seek.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mike O'Brien: I am conscious that I have limited time, but I will give way.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I am interested in the observation that we are going to imprison people who have committed no offence in this country. As I understand it, even the Home Secretary does not go that far, as he says that there are people who have committed offences, but who, for some reason or other, we cannot bring to trial.

Mike O'Brien: As I understand it, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is saying that we have good cause for believing that the people in question are involved in activities that might lead to terrorist offences or are supportive of such offences. That is a somewhat different prospect. Of course, if those involved had committed offences in this country, we would be able to deal with them in our courts. That is the way in which we should deal with them, but we are facing circumstances that are somewhat different. I am afraid, therefore, that my hon. and learned Friend, who is usually very good on these matters, is not quite right on the point that he made.
	I want to deal briefly with a number of issues. First, the decision to be taken by any Home Secretary in these circumstances will be difficult. He will have to make a judgment based on the evidence, some of which will come from confidential and high-security sources. That is a difficult decision for him to make, but once it is made, it is right that it should be subject to a review. SIAC has been established for the purpose of reviewing very difficult decisions made by the Home Secretary. I have heard some nonsense from the Opposition about SIAC being a mere immigration commission that is of little importance. It deals with fundamental issues about returning people to countries when they will not necessarily wish to return there.

Annabelle Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mike O'Brien: No, I shall not do so.
	Decisions may be made and referred to SIAC about returning people to their countries. Of course, they may be in some fear about doing so, so SIAC deals with serious situations. That is why it is a high-powered commission on which a High Court judge, an immigration judge and a specialist in security matters sit. This is indeed a very serious body. I believe that the question whether it qualifies as a court of record is immaterial. It is a serious and high-powered body that is presided over by a High Court judge and deals with serious issues. It has a special procedure that enables intelligence information to be dealt with by the special counsel procedure set up under the legislation.

Bridget Prentice: On the information from security services, will my hon. Friend make a quick comment about why it is important for the cases to be dealt with by SIAC and not judicial review, because of the potential effect on our intelligence services?

Mike O'Brien: That was the very point with which I was about to deal. Under SIAC procedures, the defendant does not get to know the source of the intelligence information that is provided to the Home Secretary. If we were to deal with these matters by judicial review, they would be referred to the divisional court. There is not currently a procedure that could enable the defendant to put his case properly before the divisional court by way of judicial review and in which he would have access to all the information about which the decision is made, other than by using certificates of public interest immunity. I suspect that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) will be seeking to intervene on that point. We know about the problems that have arisen in relation to certificates of public interest immunity in the past. There is a great reluctance to apply them, but that would seem to be the only way in which we could get these matters before the divisional court. We would be creating an entirely artificial situation that would not enable the defendant properly to examine the case against him in any event and would not involve the sort of the protections that hon. Members on both sides of the House have been seeking to claim too much in respect of judicial review.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: That point is simply wrong. The divisional court has the powers to receive whatever evidence it wants, in whichever form it wants. It does not have to reveal material from security sources to somebody who appeals to it. I am afraid that my hon. Friend is simply wrong.

Mike O'Brien: My hon. and learned Friend misses my point. If he is suggesting that judicial review would enable the Home Secretary's decision to be reviewed by the court in its fullest context, including the intelligence information that is supplied to him, I must point out that that is not the case. In effect, he is agreeing with me that such a procedure would not provide the level of judicial review that most people—who are not lawyers in this House—would expect those who favour proper protection to want. The only protection that they expect is that provided by ensuring that the Home Secretary's decision is fully reviewed in a process that includes the intelligence information. The only context in which the intelligence information and all the other facts of the case can be properly reviewed is SIAC, which has proper procedures, a senior High Court judge and circumstances in which all the facts can be examined. The special counsel can examine the security matters and the defendant's own counsel can examine the other matters before SIAC, and a judgment can then be made. It is unnecessary to have first, a High Court judge, an immigration judge and others review the Home Secretary's decision, and then also to go off to the High Court for another few judges to review it once again, without even the benefit of the defendant putting the full case, as he is unable to have before him all the facts that will be before SIAC.
	Thus, judicial review would create a wholly unnecessary, virtually spurious and messy new procedure. The Home Secretary's decision can be properly reviewed and it is necessary for that review to take place, but once the decision has been made, there is sufficient protection in the sort of procedures that we are undertaking for a very small number of people. It seems to me that the Home Secretary has shown that he is prepared to listen and to consider the concerns of hon. Members. However, I do not think that he needs to listen to the arguments that have been advanced in relation to judicial review. He can do so, but I do not think that he should accede to them, as the result would be a situation that would not protect the defendant in the way in which some of those who advocate it suggest.
	The objective for the Home Secretary should be to protect the citizens of this country and to ensure that we also protect their liberties. He is seeking to create the right balance in doing that and I support him on the plans that he is proposing.

Quentin Davies: I am conscious that we have very little time left and that we have not had an opportunity to hear back from the Government about the all-important matter of amendment No. 98. I remind the House that that amendment seeks to remove the lines in clause 21(4) that state:
	"'international terrorism' does not include terrorism concerned only with the affairs of a part of the United Kingdom."
	The provision has caused the greatest consternation and anxiety in Northern Ireland. When others of our countrymen realise what the Government have in mind, they will share that concern.
	Two big issues are at stake: the practical issue and the issue of principle. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) set out the practical issue very clearly. If someone who is a terrorist or is connected with a terrorist organisation and whose purposes are not at all friendly—indeed, they will be very hostile—comes to this country with the objective of getting involved in terrorism in a part of the United Kingdom, perhaps in Northern Ireland, the powers that the Home Secretary is rightly taking to deal with an emergency would not apply. In that respect, there is a major lacuna and a big practical problem that has been left unresolved.
	The whole House will notice that the Home Secretary and his colleagues on the Treasury Bench did not take the opportunity that was open to them either to intervene on my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary or to seek to respond to the point. There is a fundamental matter of principle as to whether we should allow into the law of the land an invidious distinction that implies that different regimes can be applied to those involved in international terrorism and those involved in terrorism within our shores. There must be an absolute principle—and I would have thought that the House of Commons would accept it unanimously—that we must be at least as rigorous in pursuing threats to our own people as we are in defending other countries around the world against the threat of terrorism.
	We expect other countries to show the same solidarity when we face terrorist threats as we have shown when such threats have been directed against them. Equally, we must ensure that our laws are even-handed and do not distinguish between the two. The last thing that we must do is to leave gaps in our laws that can be exploited by terrorists who might be targeting the United Kingdom when we are trying to close those gaps as regards terrorists who operate elsewhere.
	It being half-past eight o'clock,The Chairman, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Amendment proposed: No. 98, in clause 21, page 11, leave out lines 12 and 13.—[Mr. Letwin.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The Committee divided: Ayes 177, Noes 361.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
	The Committee divided: Ayes 341, Noes 77.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Question put, That clauses 22 to 24 stand part of the Bill:—
	The Committee divided: Ayes 347, Noes 70.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Clauses 22 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25
	 — 
	Certification: appeal

Amendment made: No. 70, in page 13, line 5, leave out—
	'does not agree with the belief or suspicion'
	and insert—
	'considers that there are no reasonable grounds for a belief or suspicion of the kind'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
	Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26
	 — 
	Certification: review

Amendment made: No. 71, in page 13, line 34, leave out—
	'does not agree with the belief or suspicion'
	and insert—
	'considers that there are no reasonable grounds for a belief or suspicion of the kind'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
	Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Question put, That clauses 27 to 35 stand part of the Bill:—
	The Committee divided: Ayes 325, Noes 89.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Clauses 27 to 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 106
	 — 
	Bribery and corruption: foreign officers etc.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Sylvia Heal: With this we may discuss the following: Clauses 107 and 108 stand part.
	New clause 5—Consent for prosecution under sections 106 or 107—
	'.—(1) No prosecution for an offence under sections 106 or 107 shall be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney General.
	(2) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament at least once every twelve months a report on any prosecutions arising under section 106 or 107.'.

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mrs. Heal. I raise this point of order so that we do not make mistakes later on. The provisions in the group that we are about to discuss all relate to bribery and corruption. Clauses 107 and 108 are then grouped next on the list. If we finish our debate on that group before 10 o'clock and are able to begin consideration of clause 109 at 10 o'clock, can we vote on clause 109—I guess that clause 110 will be grouped with it—without having compromised our views on the earlier clauses which will by then have been disposed of? I want to ensure that they can be separated.

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is correct. At that stage, if it is before 10 pm, clause 109 can be voted on separately.

Oliver Letwin: Further to that point of order, Mrs. Heal. If matters should not fall that way, I understand that you will be under an obligation under Standing Orders to call clauses 107, 108, 109 and 110 together. In which case, I place it on record that although we will be voting against that collectivity, it will actually be a vote against clauses 109 and 110 and not against clauses 107 and 108.

The First Deputy Chairman: I thank the hon. Gentleman. Hon. Members present will have heard what he said.

Beverley Hughes: Clauses 106 and 107 implement proposals contained in our White Paper, "Raising Standards and Upholding Integrity: the Prevention of Corruption". As we noted earlier, all parties expressed support for the clauses. We hope that the clauses meet our commitments to the OECD convention.
	Clause 106 will ensure that the common law offence of bribery extends to persons holding public office outside the United Kingdom. It will also amend the Prevention of Corruption Acts to ensure that they cover the bribery and corruption of foreign public bodies and officials, as well as those in the private sector, irrespective of whether their functions are carried out here or abroad.
	Clause 107 will extend our courts' extraterritorial jurisdiction over bribery and corruption offences committed abroad by United Kingdom nationals and bodies incorporated under United Kingdom law. Clause 108 is technical, but important, as it will ensure that the existing presumption of corruption will not apply more widely as a result of those clauses.

Humfrey Malins: I hope that the Committee will sympathise with me tonight because such is the nature of this place and these proceedings that, at different times during the course of the day, I have anticipated having to speak on bribery at very great length, very briefly or not at all. I have concluded that brevity would be appreciated by the Committee, because other important debates should be allowed to start as soon as possible after this one.
	What of these proposals to implement the OECD convention so as to make it an offence to bribe a foreign official to induce him to give a benefit? In short, the proposals are worthy, and they have our support. Their implementation may have nothing to do with the current emergency; their connection with terrorism or security may be almost non-existent, but we are right to find a place for them nevertheless. However, may I make a few points to the Committee?
	First, I find it terribly sad that we have no time to discuss these matters fully. They deserve close scrutiny; they deserve the attention of the whole House. One of the saddest things about today is that a number of very important issues will not get the time that they deserve. They deserve also very wide consultation, so I hope that the Government have consulted the British business world—after all, it will be affected—and taken its views into account.
	I hope, too, that the Government have considered some of the practical difficulties of holding criminal court cases here that involve principally witnesses based outside our jurisdiction and that they have spoken to bodies such as a the Crown Prosecution Service, the judiciary and the Bar Council about some of those possible difficulties.
	Secondly, do the Government realise that the proposals may have profound effects on our trade and on employment in this country? Do they accept that the proposals that we are considering tonight are thought by many to be a major self-denying ordinance, which we will, no doubt, obey in this country, while many of our competitors will not? Many countries that are signed up already ignore the convention, or they allow people to avoid it by using devices such as bogus consultancy contracts.
	Of course, it is wrong to bribe foreign officials to get contracts, but that is often the way of the buying world. Interestingly, no country in Africa or the middle east has signed up. Only one country in south America is signed up. Very few countries in Asia have signed up, and Russia and China have not. It is because the Opposition feel that in all cases, including the common law offence of bribing a foreign official that will be newly created under clause 106, prosecutions should be brought only with the Attorney-General's consent, and because we believe that an annual report to Parliament detailing all such prosecutions should be required that the Opposition have proposed new clause 5, which covers just those points.
	Particularly, in view of the time constraints on all hon. Members tonight, I hope that the Government will be very kind and helpful, and that they will accept new clause 5. It is quite a good new clause; I helped to draft it myself. It would be a great kindness if the Government were to consider it. I know that they have doubts about it, but an annual report to Parliament on prosecutions should not cause them any difficulty.

Denzil Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why he wants prosecutions to be brought only with the Attorney-General's consent?

Humfrey Malins: The Attorney-General's consent is already required for certain bribery offences. These provisions also face a novelty. If a British person bribes someone abroad—whether within or without the Bill's remit—there may be sensitive legal complications. Therefore, it seems to Conservative Members that the Attorney-General's consent would be very useful in every case.

Kevin McNamara: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there might be cases in which bribery is all right? Is he suggesting that it might be useful to secure a nice, fat, juicy defence contract but that it would not be nice if it secured a simple one for organic food?

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Gentleman makes a point, and I am stumped for a response. I have just noticed the clock, and I undertook to be brief. How time passes when one is enjoying oneself.

George Osborne: Have not the Government wished for a long time to incorporate the OECD convention on bribery into British law? Although we can debate at length the merits of the convention and whether it should be incorporated, it has absolutely nothing to do with the emergency powers needed to deal with the international terrorist threat.

Humfrey Malins: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I made that point earlier.
	I conclude by asking the Minister to clarify the position. I hope that I am wrong, but it seems to me that the common law offence as proposed would be committed by our security services every time that they bribed a foreign official to spy for us. That is a serious point and I would be very glad if she could deal with it. If that problem exists, I am sure that, for obvious reasons, the Committee would wish to remove it.

Richard Shepherd: I am a little diffident about this proposal. Years ago, I had a summer job in Africa and I was responsible for accepting goods into a company's warehouse. It was impossible to do that job without providing money to a Government official. Much of the world works on that basis. In some countries, simple transactions need the lubrication of assisting public officials to make ends meet. That places us in a difficult position. Under the provision, I would presumably have been guilty of transmitting a $20 "dash", as it is called in Africa. However, that process operates around the world.

Humfrey Malins: My hon. Friend is right. He refers to the practice of giving a "dash" and, if I may be forgiven for saying so, I must point out that my dear late mother passed her driving test in Africa only because my father, who was a Church of England clergyman, gave a "dash" to the driving instructor.
	We have to look at the world as it is. We have to be sure that, in implementing the proposals, we take into account the effect that they will have on British business and commerce. [Interruption.] It is all very well for Labour Members to mutter, but Conservative Members have some concern for British business and we know something of the problems in the world. We hope that the Government will the examine the matter carefully and—possibly in another place—reconsider the provision to satisfy themselves that these proposals, which on paper are very worthy, will not be the impediment to British industry that some of us fear that they will be.

Norman Baker: I shall be quick. Clauses 106 to 108 are unusual in two ways: they are reasonably uncontroversial by comparison with the rest of the Bill and the Government bothered to discuss them properly with the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, an approach that might commend itself to other provisions. Although I agree with the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) that the clauses have little to do with terrorism, or anti-terrorism for that matter, we should still speed them on their way. I am conscious that clause 109 is more controversial and attempts to bypass Parliament almost entirely in a sweeping way. However, I shall conclude my remarks by saying that we support the clauses.

Douglas Hogg: I do not want to speed the clauses on their way. They are sanctioned by the phrase "politically correct", but are probably bad legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) made a sound point when he said that the provisions have nothing to do with terrorism, but they are subject to a timetable and as a consequence right hon. and hon. Members are too inhibited to speak about them. That is a thoroughly bad thing. I am against the measures for three substantial reasons, which in itself is a good enough reason to oppose the Bill.
	First, it is a general proposition of English law that people are not subject to the English criminal law for acts done outside this country's jurisdiction. There are some rare exceptions to that, but as a general proposition we should not extend English law in that way. It gives rise to a range of evidential problems and is difficult to justify because we have to ask what public interest is at stake. That brings me to my second point, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins).
	It is my strong suspicion that the clauses would catch the security services. The Minister should comment on that. Let us be clear about one thing: members of the security services frequently bribe foreign officials in the interests of the United Kingdom. I was in the Foreign Office for five years and no one had better tell me that that does not happen. I find it difficult to understand why such people should be caught by the provisions, and if they are not to be caught, why not?
	The American Government have put a price on the head of bin Laden, and a good thing too. In some circumstances, that could constitute a bribe to an official to have him killed, but we are told that that would be an offence under this legislation. If my interpretation of the Bill is wrong, I look forward to hearing the Minister tell me why, but, on the face of it, I am right and the Bill is absurd.
	My final point relates to what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said. All of us who have been involved in trade abroad—I did it as a Foreign Office Minister—know full well the consultancy arrangement and commission. Time and time again, major contracts are acquired by payments of substantial commission. If we are honest about those payments, they constitute a bribe. The money is paid to an agent; it is called a commission. From that commission, the agent pays an inducement. That happens throughout the world. All trading countries do it. If we create a criminal structure that prevents our businesses from doing that, or being fearful of doing that, we will place a serious constraint on them.
	I will have no part of the clauses, although I suspect that not enough hon. Members will vote with me. I hope that the provisions will be examined more fully in another place and that the Minister will give a proper answer to my questions. The clauses should not be in the Bill. They involve serious issues.

Beverley Hughes: I disagree entirely with the argument that the right hon. and learned Gentleman just made, and which the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) made in his introduction: that there is no relationship between these clauses and terrorism. Some Members on the Opposition Front Bench do not share their views either. There is obviously a relationship, in that corrupt Governments help to create the conditions that engender terrorism and we need to make it clear that the bribery of foreign officials is just as unacceptable as the bribery of United Kingdom officials.

George Osborne: For how long has it been the intention of the Home Office to incorporate in British law the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention on bribery? Could the Minister say for how long that has been an objective, so that we may judge whether it needs to be in this emergency legislation?

Beverley Hughes: The convention was ratified by the UK Government in December 1998.

George Osborne: Right.

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has not been in the House very long, but he may know that last year, a White Paper was published that proposed the revision of all our laws on bribery and corruption. Such revisions will be made in due course. In the meantime, all parties have agreed that these two clauses represent the minimum that we need to do to try to ensure our compliance with the OECD convention as far as we can. Actually, the start of that process was a specific request in a debate in the House, by the Conservative party's spokesperson on international development, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), that the Bill be used as the vehicle for these two clauses.
	We certainly agree with the spirit of the first part of new clause 5, but I have to tell the hon. Member for Woking, despite his evident hard work prior to tonight, that I am afraid that that has all been irrelevant because the Bill amends existing statutory offences, both of which already require a Law Officer's consent, so that requirement applies to the clauses in part 12 without the need for any further amendment.

Andrew Turner: Could the Minister help me by answering the question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham—

Douglas Hogg: Sleaford and North Hykeham.

Andrew Turner: Grantham and Sleaford. [Hon. Members]: No. Just Sleaford?

Douglas Hogg: Sleaford and North Hykeham.

Andrew Turner: I am so sorry. I am wasting time. The question was whether bribing a foreign official to indicate the whereabouts of Mr. bin Laden would be unlawful under the clause.

Beverley Hughes: I shall reach that point in a moment.
	Just to deal with the second part of the new clause at this stage, I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Woking that the proposal for reporting to Parliament is necessary. The total number of persons proceeded against under the Prevention of Corruption Acts in the last calendar year was 17. On the basis of the experience in the United States we expect, as a result of these clauses, only another very small number—perhaps fewer than five—and I believe that a report to Parliament on that basis would be rather over-egging it.

Denzil Davies: There may be only a few cases, but is not there a case in principle for asking the Attorney-General to make a report to the House of Commons on the exercise or non-exercise of his discretion?

Beverley Hughes: No; I do not share that view. I do not consider that necessary. That is why, at the appropriate time, I shall ask the hon. Member for Woking not to press new clause 5.
	In answer to the question about the security services, we certainly do not envisage any circumstance where a prosecutor would consider instigating any proceedings in the situations outlined by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), and the requirement that the Attorney-General do give his consent to any statutory prosecutions is a long-stop safeguard, were that to be needed.

Douglas Hogg: But let us be clear about what the hon. Lady has said. She has said that the act would be criminal, but that she is relying on the discretion of the Attorney- General not to start a prosecution.

Beverley Hughes: That is not what I said. I said that we did not envisage any circumstances, such as those outlined by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which would satisfy the threshold for prosecution and, in any case, the fact that the Attorney-General's consent would be required is a safeguard.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 107 and 108 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 109
	 — 
	Implementation of the third pillar

Oliver Letwin: I beg to move amendment No. 102, in page 65, line 19, after "may", insert "not".

Sylvia Heal: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 103, page 65, line 19, after "provision", insert "except".
	No. 59, in page 65 leave out lines 21 to 28 and insert—
	'arising from the 2001 Framework Decision of the European Union on combating terrorism'.
	No. 104, in page 65 line 21, after "pillar", insert—
	'limited to those directives that may be required to be implemented by 31st December 2001 under the Framework Decision on Counter–Terrorism and the 1994 and 1995 Supplementary Convention on Extradition'.
	No. 22, in page 66, line 8, leave out—
	'except in accordance with subsection (7)'.
	No. 21, in page 66 line 24, leave out subsection (7).
	Clause stand part.
	Clause 110 stand part.

Oliver Letwin: I begin what will, of necessity, not be a long utterance by pointing out, mainly for the purposes of the other place but also I hope, in due course, for a wider audience, that it is positively one of the most astonishing features of our much-prized democracy that we can be discussing in 14 minutes a couple of clauses that relate to the fundamental structure of this country's constitution.
	Clause 109 deals with the removal of proper parliamentary scrutiny of legislation on justice and home affairs, which it was the noble purpose of our former colleague and Prime Minister, John Major, to institute when he brought about, at great pains to himself and to the Government whom he led, the third pillar of the EU.
	We are now faced with a Bill that will make it possible for the Government of the day to implement decisions on matters of British law, with criminal penalties attached, which have been arrived at by negotiation under the prerogative power between Ministers in Brussels, without going through the laborious process that our predecessors so carefully constructed of First and Second Reading, Committee stage, Third Reading and a similar passage in the House of Lords. None of that will now be necessary.

Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend not think it terribly wrong to treat European Union treaties as though they had been amended by the treaty of Nice before that treaty has been approved by all member states?

Oliver Letwin: I do, although I have to say that by comparison with the fundamental destruction of parliamentary check that these clauses bring about, that is a fine point, which I would expect my hon. Friend to make. It is an important one, but it is by no means as important.

Angela Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman admit that the powers that we are talking about are broadly similar to, and based on, those in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, which have been working very well since our accession in that year, and that they guarantee effective parliamentary scrutiny?

Oliver Letwin: I suppose that the Minister and I have completely different views of the centrality of legislation that entails putting people in jail. Perhaps that is the central theme running through our discussions tonight. We are dealing here with something that people in the time of Charles I would certainly have recognised but which it appears Ministers have lost sight of. Our predecessors fought a civil war to try to prevent the Executive from introducing legislation under the prerogative power that would put our citizens in jail. Now, as long as the Executive take themselves off to Brussels, they will be able to do just that in a 90-minute debate hidden away Upstairs. That is a monstrosity.

Kevin McNamara: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the city of Hull started the civil war by slamming its gates in the face of King Charles I, who went off to Nottingham in a huff. There is a democratic deficit in relation to the whole question of the third pillar. Would it not be far better if we were to seek to amend the treaties so that the ambit of the third pillar, and defence aspects and so on, came under the aegis of a properly elected European Parliament?

Oliver Letwin: The hon. Gentleman and I will differ on that point, but at least we are joined in holding the view that there should by some means be a proper democratic check. I prefer that which is provided by our own Parliament.
	The Bill proposes not the replacement of one democratic check with another, but merely the removal of the greater part of that which exists. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in seeking to remove these clauses wholesale, with one slight exception that the Opposition have explored with the Liberal Democrats. We understand there to be a small set of pre-existing obligations under the third pillar, which we have specifically exempted in our amendments.
	We also understand that it is the intention of Ministers—we hope that they will fulfil it in practice—to introduce the European arrest warrant provisions, and hence to subject them to the full glare of parliamentary scrutiny with a reasonable timetable. We are grateful for that. Thus, we are talking about implementation of every decision and framework decision under the third pillar thereafter. I hope that the Committee will realise what it is doing if it allows Ministers to introduce the legislation in its current form. If it does not realise that, I hope that the other place will do so.

George Osborne: My point concerns an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) in his cross-examination of the Under-Secretary in the Select Committee on Home Affairs. He asked her whether, as a result of the clause, measures that had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism could be introduced by affirmative resolution in this House rather than in primary legislation. She said, "The answer is yes."

Oliver Letwin: Not only was that her answer, but it was true.

David Cameron: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not only Opposition Members who feel strongly about the extraordinary power that is being taken in the clause? The Home Affairs Committee—a Labour-dominated body—agreed unanimously that it was wrong to take the power. Indeed, amendment No. 59, which originates from the Committee, seeks to restrict the power to provisions that apply to terrorism in the framework directive.

Oliver Letwin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
	I now want to sit down to give the maximum opportunity to my opposite number, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), to make the point that we are not discussing a piece of Conservative Euroscepticism. The issue has nothing to do with that, as it relates to the preservation of the fundamental ability of this House to protect British citizens.

Simon Hughes: I shall be extremely brief. I want to make the point that I was invited to make by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). The view about how we should proceed on this matter unites people who have always been sceptical about more powers going to the European Union, such as the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), and those who have been very positive about that prospect.
	We object for three simple reasons. First, it was always understood that justice and home affairs matters needed to be treated differently. That is why there is such a thing as the third pillar and why legislation dealing with liberty, prisons, policing and the rest has always been treated differently—Parliament has always been most keen to reserve its authority over those matters.
	Secondly, in that area the decision of the Council of Ministers is not subject to a co-decision by the European Parliament. I do not think that all my colleagues are aware of that fact. There does not have to be democratic accountability somewhere else for that decision. There is no democratic accountability.

Angela Eagle: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the European Parliament takes a co-decision on some of the issues. His argument that there is no way in which that Parliament can oversee the matter—leaving aside the scrutiny that takes place as all these directives are drawn up through our processes here—is wrong.

Simon Hughes: I stand to be corrected, but I talk to colleagues who are Members of the European Parliament and lead the group there. I understand that the matters that would be governed by these clauses, which would allow the Secretary of State to put statutory instruments before the House to be debated and disposed of in 90 minutes, are not matters that would go to the European Parliament after the Council of Ministers decides on them.
	The hon. Member for West Dorset, the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrat party and I have agreed that, where the United Kingdom has said that it will pass certain measures into law by the end of this year, we must do so—matters that are clearly related to terrorism or have a timetable commitment.
	We are not willing, however, to sign up to a sudden change in a very delicately negotiated constitutional settlement, which provides that third pillar justice and home affairs matters will be treated differently until and unless Parliament decides otherwise. We have not debated whether we should decide differently. We have never looked at the issue in the round. We have not considered amendments to the treaty. We are being asked to do all that here, in a limited time, in the context of this Bill. That is inappropriate and I hope that hon. Members on both sides will support the amendments and will vote that the clauses should be taken out of the Bill.

Angela Eagle: I ask the Committee to resist all the amendments and agree that clauses 109 and 110 should stand part of the Bill.
	On bypassing Parliament, which is the issue that has caused the outrage, these powers have been broadly working in relation to the first pillar since 1972. They provide an effective way for this Parliament to scrutinise the decisions taken—by unanimity—in the Justice and Home Affairs Council.

Annabelle Ewing: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Eagle: I do not have time. I have only two minutes to answer some of the questions that have been raised. [Interruption.] I will not give way. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members had not spent so much time talking and voting, we would have had the time to have a much—[Interruption.]

Sylvia Heal: Order. Hon. Members may wish to hear what the Minister has to say.

Angela Eagle: If we had spent less time on some of the shenanigans that we have witnessed tonight, we would have had more time to deal with the debates.

Andrew Turner: On a point of order, Mrs. Heal. Is it right to describe debating and voting on clauses as shenanigans? Is it not a right of hon. Members?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It is important that we get to the substance of the Bill.

Angela Eagle: The amendments to the clauses that try to focus only on terrorism simply do not work. The framework decisions that the Justice and Home Affairs Council is drawing up deal with serious crime too. If Opposition Members are serious about fighting terrorism, they need to consider not only the framework decision on terrorism but the decisions on freezing assets, money laundering and mutual judicial co-operation, which help us to catch terrorists. We know from the documents that are emerging from Kabul that al-Qaeda has been involved in money laundering and drug smuggling.
	Opposition Members want to say that terrorism is important, but they also want to tie our hands when it comes to judicial co-operation on dealing with terrorist organisations. They need to realise that we need to take power at European level to ensure that we can deal with global organisations in the most effective way.
	It being Ten o'clock, The Chairman, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The Committee divided: Ayes 210, Noes 344.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question put, That clauses 109 and 110 stand part of the Bill:—
	The Committee divided: Ayes 343, Noes 203.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Clauses 109 and 110 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 111
	 — 
	Use of noxious substances to cause harm and intimidate

Amendments made: No. 38, in page 68, line 2, at end insert "anywhere in the world".
	No. 39, in line 3, leave out "property" and insert—
	'real or personal property anywhere in the world'.
	No. 40, in line 13, leave out "any person" and insert—
	'a person anywhere in the world'.
	No. 41, leave out lines 22 to 24—[Mrs. McGuire.]
	Clause 111, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 112 to 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 115
	 — 
	Information about acts of terrorism

Amendment made: No. 68, in page 70, line 9, leave out "or a procurator fiscal".—[Mrs. McGuire.]
	Clause 115, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 116 to 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	To report progress and ask leave to sit again.— [Mr. Pearson.]
	Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Monday 26th November, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Lords Messages have been received.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Young Offenders Units

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Jim Cousins: The events with which I am concerned tonight relate to the death of a 12-year-old boy in my constituency called Wesley Neailly, who was reported missing on 5 June 1998. Dominic McKilligan, aged 18, was charged with his murder in July 1998 and subsequently found guilty.
	Of course, nothing can bring back Wesley Neailly. Nothing can heal the hurt of his mother, his grandfather and other members of his family. But there are lessons to be learned from the circumstances that led to this dreadful tragedy, and I know that Wesley Neailly's family want those lessons to be learned. They want the bad practice and bad management that is evident in the history of this dreadful affair to be put right once and for all.
	I wish to place on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke). When he was a Minister at the Home Office, he met Wesley Neailly's family with me, leading to the early implementation of the Sex Offenders Act 1997. I also wish to thank the northern region health executive for commissioning the central report that was published last week dealing with the history of this dreadful affair.
	There are only a limited number of cases each year in which young people between the ages of 10 and 18 commit violent or sexual offences. They make up a small, very disturbed group of young people. Very few go on to commit homicide—murder—in the way that occurred in this case.
	The report demonstrates that there are early signals which could, if the organisation was right, prevent some of the disasters that occurred in this affair. Wesley Neailly was a 12-year-old boy in my constituency. Most of my constituency is very diverse. It comprises a mixture of people living together, of different races, religions, life styles and age groups, and has a very mobile population of the kind that one sees in any big city in which people find themselves and, sometimes, lose themselves.
	Dominic McKilligan arrived in Fenham, just one such part of my constituency, at the age of 18, to lose himself and, tragically, to find others. When he came to Fenham, he was already highly intelligent, manipulative and disturbed, a practised abuser of long standing with a long-established capacity for wicked threats and acts for which he showed no remorse. He sought out young Wesley Neailly, befriended him, led him away and murdered him. The circumstances that led up to that tragedy are the subject of the reports and they are a source of great concern to me. I was very shocked and disturbed by their contents.
	For example, when Dominic McKilligan was placed in the Fenham area of my constituency—he did not just arrive there, he was placed there—no outreach programme was set up for him. The report says in cold and chilling terms that the consequences of the lack of action in respect of the young man's discharge into my constituency were that no agency that had been responsible for his care when he was discharged from the Aycliffe unit in County Durham had any formal plan in place to visit and support him in the place where he was going to live. No statutory agency in the area in which he was going to live was made aware of his presence until two and a half months after his discharge from Aycliffe and six days after the ending of the care order which might have been the basis of some preventive action. The first time that Northumbria police have any record of knowing about Dominic McKilligan's presence in the area was when he himself chose to report to the local police information about the disappearance of Wesley Neailly.
	The failure of agencies to share information with each other, with the local community and with the local police is at the disastrous heart of that dreadful tragedy. The report documents in chilling detail the lack of documentation regarding McKilligan's treatment in his first year at the Aycliffe centre. Those records apparently cannot be found. That is a shocking fact, and something that the Aycliffe unit must investigate thoroughly.
	It took 10 months from McKilligan's arrival at Aycliffe from Bournemouth for him to receive a full assessment. Why did it take so long? The Kolvin unit at the then Newcastle city hospitals trust, which had the clinical supervision of McKilligan's care, deemed him—at times only two months apart—to be a high risk and a low risk. There must be some inquiry into the conduct of the Kolvin unit and why that confusion of analysis occurred. What other confusions of analysis may have occurred at other times?
	The report contains clear evidence not merely of lack of co-ordination between Bournemouth, where McKilligan originated, the Aycliffe unit in Durham where he was cared for, and Newcastle, where he was placed, but of conflict between the caring agencies and of a failure to share information. The arguments between the agencies were more centred on money and finance than they were on the substance of the case.
	The record keeping was lamentably poor. There should have been seven recorded reviews of McKilligan's progress, care and treatment at Aycliffe. Only three can be found. McKilligan decided that he would leave Aycliffe after an incident in which he flirted with another boy and was threatened with the child protection board. That triggered his decision to leave Aycliffe. During his time at Aycliffe, a unit under the control of Durham county council, 15 very serious incidents are logged concerning his behaviour, 13 of which were of a clearly sexual nature. The unit's policy was that it did not encourage sexual behaviour and activity between those who were being cared for at Aycliffe. None the less, inadequate action seems to have been taken to deal with this matter.
	The report records, in chilling terms, that specialist units—Aycliffe at Durham and the Kolvin unit at the Newcastle city hospitals trust—understandably feel the need to succeed and that behaviours can thus too readily be justified. The report documents 16 agencies as having had the care of Dominic McKilligan, involving 200 members of their staff. Several professions were involved. As I said, there was a failure to share information; there was conflict between some of the caring agencies and there were rows about money and the responsibility for supervision. There was extremely poor record keeping at the Aycliffe centre.
	Finally, I point out that McKilligan came to Newcastle to follow a music course at Newcastle college. I want to record my deep understanding of what the professionals at the college—who had no knowledge of that young man and his history—must feel about the period in which he was under their care. I have a great deal of sympathy for them.
	It is clear from the report and from a similar report produced by Newcastle and North Tyneside health authority that the Kolvin unit at Newcastle city hospitals trust failed adequately to carry out the duty of supervision of that young man that it had agreed to undertake. Durham county council, which is responsible for the management of the Aycliffe unit, did not take adequate action. We must explore the need for further inquiry both by the mental health trust that has taken over responsibility for the Kolvin unit from Newcastle city hospitals trust, and by Durham county council into its actions.
	Is there a need to identify the staff responsible and perhaps to carry out disciplinary action or to provide additional training? We must certainly demonstrate to the people of the north-east that the failures recorded in such chilling detail can never be repeated. General words of comfort and general assurances will not do. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will make clear her desire that such inquiries should be carried out speedily and robustly, and that if they are not undertaken by Durham county council and the mental health trust, she will herself ensure that the necessary corrective action is put in hand.
	Some important lessons for the Government emerge from this matter. There has been no proper calculation of the number of young people who need that specialist care. There are no consistent standards for care arrangements, for assessment and treatment, for clinical oversight and accountability and for the training of staff. There is no single regulatory inspection system for units that care for such deeply disturbed young people.
	Furthermore, there is no geographical consistency or equity of provision. There is a grave shortage of places. That is how Dominic McKilligan, who lived in Bournemouth, came to be placed in a unit in County Durham. Had there been better, and better spread, provision, that would never have happened. There must be co-ordination of the protocols and policies that link all the caring agencies—social services, health, education and, of course, the custodial services that deal with young offenders—so that they will think and act together. They must co-ordinate their records and share information, especially if children and young people leave their home area and switch between responsible authorities, so that those young people can benefit from co-ordinated, specialist support.
	The reports highlight the enormous need for nationwide specialist assessment facilities and for skilled remand facilities. There should not be 1,000 young people in that age group in the care of prisons. There should be skilled treatment facilities, including secure treatment facilities, so that other communities can be protected in a way that my community in Newcastle was not.
	The Government should take responsibility for the regulation of what is an extraordinary array of different facilities, some run by the NHS, some run by voluntary agencies, some even run for profit by the private sector and some, such as Aycliffe, run by local social services agencies and the county council.
	The treatment facilities should be provided on nationwide basis, so that it will never again be necessary for a deeply disturbed young man to be taken from his home community—where there was a great deal of knowledge about him, his family and his early life, with all the signals that that gave about his later behaviour—and placed at the other end of the country, where some of that knowledge sadly does not appear to have arrived or to have been properly shared.
	At present, there are a very limited number of specialist facilities for young sex offenders. Those that exist are spread across that wide range of different agencies, without nationally agreed standards of care. I hope that alongside the necessary, robust corrective action that must be taken by Durham county council and by the mental health trust, which now has responsibility for managing the Kolvin unit, there will be a programme of national action to correct the deficiencies in the system that the reports highlight—Wesley Neailly's family expect no less.

Jacqui Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on securing this important debate on the case of Dominic McKilligan.
	The death of any child is desperately sad, but the death of Wesley Neailly was particularly tragic, and I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to his family.
	As my hon. Friend has said, Dominic McKilligan was only 18 when he murdered Wesley. Dominic was a damaged young man who had exhibited very dangerous behaviour and had had a great deal of contact with statutory agencies over several years. He had significant contact with social services, mental health services and the criminal justice system. As a child, he was the subject of a care order to the local authority, and following his conviction for sexual offences as a young teenager, he received treatment for his offending behaviour.
	Dorset, and then Bournemouth social services, however, had lead responsibility for Dominic's welfare and were ultimately responsible for ensuring that his care plan encompassed all aspects of his treatment and that there was very careful planning for his discharge from the care system on turning 18.
	My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, given the risks that Dominic presented, a very high standard of assessment, planning, intervention and review was absolutely essential, but there was clearly a failure in this case. Let me make it clear, however, that the requirement for thorough assessment, planning, intervention and review is nothing new. The Arrangements for Placement of Children (General) Regulations l99l, under which local authorities are required to draw up care plans, and the Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991, under which reviews are required to take place to enable the plan for the child to be reconsidered and any necessary changes to the care plan to be made, are in operation.
	Wesley's death rightly gave rise to very serious questions about how effectively the agencies responsible had worked together to plan and provide for Dominic's care and treatment. Without doubt, there are important lessons to be learned from this case for a number of agencies. They include how to ensure that people and the current systems work correctly and that people and resources develop to minimise the possibility of such an event happening again.
	It was because of the clear need to learn from this tragic case that the responsible area child protection committees—ACPCs—for Bournemouth, Durham and Newcastle decided to carry out a serious case review, under the "Working Together to Safeguard Children" guidance, into the management of the care and treatment provided to Dominic McKilligan. In parallel with this review, Newcastle and North Tyneside health authority, which is the host commissioner for the Kolvin unit that oversaw Dominic McKilligan's treatment programme at the Aycliffe centre in Durham, commissioned an independent inquiry into the health care and treatment of Dominic under the terms of the health service guidance in circular (94)27. As my hon. Friend said, the report of the inquiry was published, along with a summary of the serious case review, on 14 November 2001.
	Both the serious case review and the independent health authority inquiry have identified specific issues for local authorities, the NHS, and their partner agencies to address through their ACPCs. The serious case review, which makes recommendations to the three ACPCs that commissioned the review, concludes that Wesley Neailley's death could not have been predicted. However, it highlights how important it is for the key professionals involved with young people who have committed violent or sexual offences to carry out, on a multi-agency basis, effective assessments of young people's needs and the likelihood of such offences being committed in the future; to use current research findings to inform professional judgments and decision making; and to ensure responsibility and accountability for the implementation and reviewing of plans across agencies.
	Those, along with other recommendations, have been the subject of detailed action plans drawn up by each of the ACPCs and the NHS trust involved in this case to take forward the review's recommendations.
	My hon. Friend made an important point about how we monitor implementation and future progress. The implementation of these plans will be rigorously monitored by the Department of Health, through its regional offices and the social services inspectorate.
	Key recommendations from the independent health inquiry included the premise that the Department of Health should issue further guidance which reinforces the requirements of agencies responsible for young people that need mental health treatment; and that the Department should review existing guidance to local authorities and provide written notification to other agencies when young people are discharged from care and placed in other areas.
	The Department will consider seriously whether any additional guidance is required. My hon. Friend made an important point about the failure of the discharge process in this case. In terms of planning for discharge, since 1 October 2001 local authorities have been required to comply with the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. The principal aim of the Act, which was implemented this October, is to improve the support available to young people leaving care.
	As my hon. Friend pointed out, we know that Dominic left care at the age of 18 already a deeply troubled young man, and that he then became lost to the system. The provisions of the Act, had they been in force at the time, might have gone some way to preventing this tragedy. Dominic would have left care at 18, but the Act imposes a new duty on local authorities to keep in touch with care leavers until they are at least 21 and to make sure that they receive the support to which they are entitled.
	My hon. Friend asked for further work to be done in relation to the health responsibility and, in particular, to the responsibility of the Kolvin unit. I am glad that Newcastle and North Tyneside health authority and Northumberland Mental Health NHS Trust, which is now responsible for the Kolvin unit, have taken action to review their involvement in supporting treatment programmes that are undertaken by other organisations, so as to ensure that responsibilities for clinical oversight are clear. In future, any arrangements for the provision of specialist treatment programmes or of training support to other organisations that are delivering such programmes will be unambiguous with regard to the important issue of clinical responsibility, and will have clear standards against which the programme can be monitored. Under the Health Act 1999, the Commission for Health Improvement has responsibility for inspection of NHS provision. I hope to comment further on inspection and common standards.

Jim Cousins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for going through these matters and take heart from the changes that she mentions. However, she will recognise that the report illustrates that the procedures of the time were not properly carried out. Does she know whether the action plans relevant to Durham county council, Bournemouth social services or the Kolvin unit have resulted in disciplinary action or acceptance of responsibility by the staff?

Jacqui Smith: I do not know whether the action plans have led to disciplinary procedures. As I emphasised, they are a key part of the response to such problems and will be closely monitored. Durham social services department has carried out an internal inquiry. Perhaps I could write to my hon. Friend on that specific issue.
	The serious case review also made the important recommendation that area child protection committees should make representations to Ministers, and highlighted the urgent need for a national strategy to be developed for the management and treatment of young, violent and/or sex offenders. My ministerial colleagues in the Home Office are giving that careful consideration.
	The youth justice board is preparing an effective practice strategy for working with young people who sexually abuse. To inform that, a number of pilots are being conducted in the community, with plans to extend them to the secure estate. The board is also ensuring that all youth-offending team staff receive appropriate training and that work is monitored and quality assured to measure effectiveness. The Department of Health is also closely involved in those discussions.
	Dealing effectively with the most dangerous individuals, including young people, is a key part of modernising the criminal justice system and making it more responsive. We have made substantial improvements to the way in which we treat and rehabilitate young people in particular. It may reassure my hon. Friend to know that if a 14-year-old boy were to be convicted today of the same crimes as Dominic McKilligan committed as a 14-year-old, he would be required to register with the police under the provisions of the Sex Offenders Act 1997.
	Multi-agency public protection panels exist in every area of the country, bringing together agencies with a statutory duty to co-operate to manage high-risk offenders. As Dominic approached 18 years of age, he would have been the subject of one of those meetings, which would in turn have been part of the pathway planning process because he was a child leaving care. A senior member of staff from Newcastle college would have attended that meeting and been part of the discharge planning process. I recognise my hon. Friend's concern that a college that has not been properly notified is unable to take the necessary action.
	An inter-agency inspection of safeguards for children is scheduled for this winter. The inspection will focus on the range of safeguarding measures that are in place in council areas. It will incorporate judgments about services that are provided by social services, health, the police, probation officers, education and custodial establishments, and the courts, and it will consider the agencies' individual effectiveness as well as their effectiveness in the corporate arena, such as in area child protection committees and the community safety forum.

Jim Cousins: Do the Government propose to address the shortage of treatment facilities nationally for the category of young people who require care and supervision?

Jacqui Smith: It is part of our investment in mental health services to ensure that we increase the number of secure placements. It is crucial to get better co-ordination between the services. I made clear how the Government are addressing some of those issues, and we will learn the lessons that my hon. Friend spelled out.
	The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at Eleven o'clock.

Deferred Divisions
	 — 
	Human Rights

That the Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3644), dated 11th November 2001, which was laid before this House on 12th November, be approved.
	The House divided: Ayes 331, Noes 74.

Question accordingly agreed to.